Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barek/Archive_2010.
Barek, are the the person who is changing my article about the decades? The decade officially began in 2001 because there was no year zero. I wish you would stop being a control freak! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.184.49 (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not reverted your edits, but I agree with the reverts.
Your actions go against community consensus on the article talk page, as well as going against the Wikipedia guideline documented at WP:RY. If you have an issue, please discuss it on the talk page. As it stands, you are close to breaking the three revert rule on the article, which could potentially result in administrator action being taken. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually...
You would have broken that rule also, also it is the official definition for the beginning of a decade, so it isn't unimportant to anything else, also lots of people think that I am right from the talk pages too. Say that 75% agree with you. Maybe 75% of people are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.184.49 (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am in no danger of violating WP:3RR; my last edit on that article was on December 22nd. As I said, I have not reverted any of your edits, although I do agree with those who have made the reverts. On being right or wrong, what matters is consensus.
As to when I am on Wikipedia - I have no idea where you're coming from on that. You're incorrect on how frequently I'm on Wikipedia, although it certainly doesn't matter one way or the other. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dietrich v The Queen
I don't think there is any need for you to be involved at this stage, but FYI there is a message at my talk that was addressed to me and you. You may recall that you reverted some changes to Dietrich v The Queen (with an excellent edit summary btw), and I made a related comment on the talk page. That editor (as an IP) has left the message mentioned above. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. The same user had also posted the message on my talk page, but I reverted it (here) - mainly because I viewed it as original research of legal analysis and soapboxing. I saw your reply and the user's comment to that reply - so at least they understand the issue with adding the material. Unfortunately, their reply suggests that they don't seem to understand the purpose of the talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles, not to be a forum for general discussion about the subject. But, at this point, I'll leave the discussion in your capable hands unless there's a reason for me to get involved further. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Preferring the transcripts and the written submissions of the trials and appeals, I could never compete with 'reliable sources' such as those cited in support of the original article, including: Silvester, John (10 June 2005). "Hugo Rich chose the low road". The Age. Retrieved 8 October 2007. Wilkinson, Geoff (6 March 2009). "Bandits fled in seconds". Herald Sun: p. 33. Wilkinson, Geoff (12 June 2009). "Hugo Rich guilty of security guard Erwin Kastenberger's murder". Herald Sun. Retrieved 13 November 2009. - Mark A Clarkson (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Fairmont-logo.jpg
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Fairmont-logo.jpg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the image has been replaced with an .svg version, which is more appropriate for the logo use. I'll tag the File:Fairmont-logo.jpg version for deletion, as it's no longer needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. From what I can see, the dmoz link contains all that the IP wants and more, and that one extra click shouldn't be an issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome - although I didn't really view it as vandalism myself. Looked more like a confusing wording change by a user where the prior wording was more concise. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having a problem with the NHRP infobox map. Maybe they changed something in the infobox? As a point of information, this is only PART of the NHRP listing, and may itself not actually be listed (per Elkman). I'm not done with this article, but maybe you could take a look in the meantime. Happy New Year to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Hi, I noticed you'd removed some spam from Adventure travel in the past, so thought I'd check an edit with you to see if it flies. I've just dropped out the 'Tour operators, travel agencies & retailers' section entirely. It appeared to me to be nothing but spam, and was presented as a key focus of the article. Also, theres a note on the talk page about an agency offering to maintain this section (As further evidence of spam) Do you think this deletion is reasonable? Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the removal. It looks like at least one other person also agreed as it had been tagged with the {{advert}} section header in December. From the talk page, it looks like about a week after someone posted a warning that someone was paying to have commercial mentions added to the article, the section was created with those links.
It wouldn't hurt to add a comment on the article talk page about why the section was removed - just so that there's no misunderstanding by anyone else who may question the section removal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Entry
I am sorry, I am just trying to get my company Aflexi listed as a CDN provider. What is the best way to go about doing this? We are new, but I think we should be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OI87 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, please read a few of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that would be directly related to your edits:
WP:CORP = Notability guidelines for companies and organizations.
WP:COI = Conflict of Interest guideline, with information on editing articles on companies with which you are related.
WP:NOTADVERTISING = Policy that specifies that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.
It looks like you removed the citation from where I got the info for the information posted, then put "need citation". I have to disagree that just because something was created by a private company it is spam. You edited it within 2 minutes, yet the video is 5 minutes long. Therefore it is clear you didn't watch it before making your edit. Can you elaborate? 173.12.56.65 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the video does contain the information, it's highly spammish in nature - through the entire presentation, an advert link is smacked into the middle of the screen - a site which is on Wikipedia's spam blacklist due to its persistent abuse of using Wikipedia for self-promotion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I wasn't aware it was on the blacklist. That's a shame, it has some great information. I'll undo the information I added from watching it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.56.65 (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i got it.
by the way i tell you that this food（寿司） calls "sushi", not "suchi".
thank you.
(cur) (prev) 16:26, 16 January 2010 Barek (talk | contribs) (37,381 bytes) (rv - artificial things that are made to look like suchi are not, in fact, suchi. Image is only tangentally related to subject, and does not help to illustrate text of the article.) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NederlandsNederlands (talk • contribs)
Yup, sorry about that. I realized I had done the typo as soon as I hit "save", but by then it was too late to change the edit summary. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, Greetings. I'm having a problem aligning a barnstar. Could you please take a look and see if you can clear up my format problem Thank you and Cheers to you, too. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Please feel free to make constructive edits to articles in the future - edits that improve article content with verifiable, reliably sourced content is highly valued. However, joke edits are strongly discouraged, and can potentially result in your account being blocked from editing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Links
I don't usually use wikipedia, but I always thought that if you had something to share, that you could...no wonder so few actually use it or add to it. Wow, super controlling! So much for wikipedia being by the people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.133.39.2 (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have verifiable content to add into the body of articles with reliable sources to support the content, then it is the place to add it. However, Wikipedia is not the place to advertise or spam links to a website across multiple articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the website content speaks to what the wikipedia article is talking about, I don't see how it would not be appropriate. How can you just automatically deny a site without even looking to see if it is verifiable or has reliable sources? How were you made master of the internet? Are you an employee or just someone who likes to control others? This was not spam, I was not looking for page rank or no follow or whatever you said in your message. I just thought this would be something people might be interested in reading to supplement what they were looking for on wikipedia. That's what I THOUGHT wikipedia was for... but I will have to remember that there are just a few people behind the pages that actually control content. I understand why you wouldn't want spam, but why did you automatically think it was?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.133.39.2 (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was working on a reply; but Tedder's comment was much more concise, and supplies a third opinion. My only additional comment is that I did view the website being added, it's a personal blog and fails WP:ELNO #4 & 11, as well as failing WP:NOT#REPOSITORY.
Well you guys obviously spend WAY too much time doing this stuff. No, I don't sit around and read rule books all day long like you apparently do. I thought I understood the purpose of Wikipedia, but obviously I was not totally correct. Thanks for the info. Just remember that things like this are what keep the average person from wanting to participate and it limits participation to the very few who are very "detail oriented" to put it nicely. I heard it's something like only 1% of wikipedia people put in 99% of the content...hmm, sounds like a dictatorship instead of a democracy. Oh well, I tried to participate. Like most things now adays, it's somewhat pointless when there are an "elite" few who are all about control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.133.39.2 (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to your own opinion; although you are mistaken. Wikipedia content is based on discussion and consensus. The policies and guidelines that govern content were not handed down by site owners; they were developed over time based upon community discussion and consensus on what the community believed was appropriate for site content.
Granted, learning the community developed policies and guidelines can take time. That is why you were provided links to help you to understand them. If you choose to view yourself as a victim because you did not read the links provided that explain why your external link is not appropriate, that's your decision. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is National Motorists Association. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial CDNs
" Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Content delivery network. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted."
- I've been adding in WINK into the commercial CDNs for some time now - I was actually up there for almost two years beofe Haakon began the removal madness, sure it was removed for the external linking, once it was brought to my attention external links were removed. I don't understand why you are policing the list in the manner you do in conjunction with Haakon (wiki editor)
Akamai, Amazon, BitGravity, CacheFly, CDNetworks, Cotendo, EdgeCast, GoGrid, Highwinds, etc.. are allowed in the list - yet you are adamant to remove WINK at every opportunity. How is WINK any different? Why the constant removal? for the record GoGrid is not a CDN it is Cloud Technology that utilizes EdgeCast for their CDN - so in that case EdgeCast is the CDN not GoGrid. And yes I have read all the other profiles and they are really not that relevant - conversely WINK is equally relevant, maybe not worth its own page at this point by worth being in the list.
Basically my point is if the attitude is going to be so anti-competitive perhaps it is best to remove the commercial CDN section entirely rather than removing other legitimate CDNs. It is at the point where i have to wonder if perhaps the editor Haakon is getting some kickback for policing the list - I am sure he is not that interesting in Content Delivery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldcupsailing (talk • contribs) 04:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a notability guideline for web content, and entries on that list have met that guideline (as demonstrated by having their own articles that meet that criteria). Meanwhile Wink, by your own admission, is not able to meet the criteria for having its own article as yet. Perhaps one day it shall, and at that time it would be appropriate to add it to the list; but not yet.
What was wrong with the link to the video that I used as a citation? It is from Ferndale's official sight. You don't think that a municipality's official website can be trusted? Please explain. Lou2u (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me why you feel the need to remove my external link to a better explanation of corporate bond risks? It seems to me just bloody mindedness. I am by the way a bond trader with 25 years experience in this area - are you?
My interests lie in providing good information, not in 'burning books'!
Please read WP:EL and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and while you're add it take a look at WP:COI and WP:SPAM - Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your personal website. If you feel the link adds value, discuss it on the talk page and see if the community supports adding it to the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, it's not an appropriate place for an external link. WP:ELPOINTS #2 states that "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable."
After looking at the linked site (which appears to be commercial in nature) I would at first consider this an inappropriate link that was likely erroneously added in good faith - although if it gets re-added after explaining the issue to whomever added it, then I would begin to consider it spam. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will look up my Wiki login on my old Blackberry phone tonight so I can login properly. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in until I saw your note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.190.193 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 17 March 2010
Piano's edit
I saw that you recently warned Piano and Chaos for edit warring. Have you looked at Piano's edits, especially his threats on user talk pages? He has a pretty one-sided view of WP:SPAM, and instead of discussing what is actually considered spam he's threatening to report editors for "vandalism" when they put sources back into articles and have a page "protected" just to inhibit anyone from disagreeing with him. He doesn't appear to be listening to anything that I say, given that he left my comments on his page with a "that's not compelling enough" comment. Is it possible for you to review some of this situation and at least provide your assessment? I have placed a thread at WP:RSN regarding this issue as well. Others have voiced similar things to Piano, but he has ignored them as well. BIGNOLE (Contact me)03:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty typical response from this group, whose false argument is basically "everything needs a reference". This isn't true in Wikipedia, or in any professional publication. This group isn't involved in a discussion, they are seeking to place an emotional spin by characterizing legitimate warnings about WP:SPAM as "threats". They cite no Wikpedia policy or guidelines. In keeping with their evasive, dishonest approach, I was not informed of the thread in WP:RSN, or indeed, of his comment to you, here. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, could you suggest the next step, here? The dozen-plus amazon.com links in the List of Smallville episodes are atypical of Wiki articles. Bignole opened a discussion in Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but it was tabled as not being an issue of source reliability.[1] At the moment, because you gave me a 3RR warning, I can't act directly on the article. Yet, if it is the case that the links are spam, then those in favor of the spam have been successful in controlling the article, and retaining commercial links in Wiki. It wouldn't be so problematic if the links weren't setting a precedent such that any fact stated on a commercial web page is sufficient reason to add an external link from Wikpedia. I.e., amazon.com could pretty much add links to any Wiki article in which they had a financial interest. Ideas? Piano non troppo (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I went to bed shortly after the 3RR tags last night. Looks like a lot of activity since then - I'm still trying to catch up.
My initial thoughts: I partially agree with both sides: the dates are a factual data point that should be sourced; but, using Amazon as a source places that retailer above all other retailers of the videos. That's part of why ISBN numbers are used for books - but unfortunately, no comparable standardized tracking code is available for videos. I would like to see a less spammy source used as a ref - I'm just not familiar enough with TV and video issues to know what sources are commonly used. Although my first impulse would be to search for press releases as being a better source.
I disagree with the closing reason as a legitimate question did exist asking if Amazon retail links should be considered reliable sources - but the way the discussion progressed muddied the discussion so that root question was lost. The close reason did leave room for opening a new thread if the issue were addressed more directly, as the close reason stated "If you do have a question about the reliability of a particular source, please include the url or isbn of the source in question, the article in which the source being used, the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting, and links to the relevant talk page discussion."
A next step could be to contact the person who closed it, asking if they feel it appropriate to re-open the discussion if specific examples and links are provided (I'm not very familiar with that notice board, so suggest asking the person who closed the original discussion).
An additional step could be contacting a relevant Wikiproject, such as WT:TV, to ask for more direct prior precedents and suggested links to use if refs should be used.
You could also try WP:ELN - but I suspect they would direct you to WP:RSN.
Using ISBN is an interesting idea, because DVDs do have them, and they are usefully searchable with Google or Bing. (E.g., "ISBN1424856264". The Indianapolis Public Library has a long, detailed page on a Seinfeld DVD, which is one of the "list pages" under discussion.) Piano non troppo (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If ISBNs can be found, then that would be my suggestion to use as a compromise. I had searched for ISBNs on the Smallville series but didn't see any, so had mistakenly assumed that videos didn't have them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Videos do not have ISBNs (International Standard Book Number), it would make no sense for them to. Finding a book that talks about a DVD is something completely different, and you're less likely to find one talking about the release date for every season of a show. DVDs do not have ISBNs. BIGNOLE (Contact me)19:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RMNP
Sorry -- I meant to delete the same link you did. I've run into this before, where simultaneous editing gets confused, with no conflict notification. Weird. -- Elphion (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Barek, perhaps I didn't form my external link properly, however, I do believe it to be a value resort on the subject matter. What better way to understand the meaning of "Ski Resort" then to see an aerial depictions of the best ski resorts in the world illustrated by the most famous Ski Map Artist in the world??? I believe you will agree that this is a value resource link. I will endeavor to make my entries less promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatman1 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Barek, you can't be serious about the WP:NOT#REPOSITORY thing seeing how ski resorts only has one external link, added another one hardly makes it a REPOSITORY. Regarding WP:ELNO, the only guideline that the external link [2] I posted possible treads on is the one about personal website, however, since James Niehues is considered an expert in his field, depicting ski resorts for the masses, it can be easily argued that his website is a value resource for the topic. Did you bother to examine the external link? Did you not see first hand the value of the content on that webpage to the subject matter "Ski Resorts"? If you are going to deny wikipedia users access to content you should at least endeavor to make sure that the content isn't a true resource. And if you visit the webpage and review the content there and come away from it thinking it's not a value resource directly on topic, then you should probably not be an editor of this topic. In my opinion that is. I ask you to please read the title WP:ELNO again and make note of the word "Normally". I image it's there because there are exemplary exceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatman1 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did view the website. The link is artwork depictions, a tangentally related subject. It is not appropriate to the article. Feel free to invite further comments from other editors at WP:ELN or on the article talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines were posted to your talk page along with the warnings. You should familiarize yourself with those policies. Your photobucket link of an image of yourself [3] that you repeatedly added to the Baldness article was spam and self-promotional, and was appropriately removed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Barek. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Monjeau lookout, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GedUK08:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know, I'll use a prod instead. It's a non-notable hiking destination that was created for the sole purpose of promoting "CopperMoonLodging.com" (the only edits by the creator of the article have been spamming that link). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be surprised if it gets declined, though; geographical places are inherently notable, so the consensus has it, anyway. GedUK09:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lookout is a structure/building, which are distinct from geographic places - It's located within a geographical area; but that has its own existing articles at Lincoln National Forest, although articles for other geographic areas which are associated with the building could be justified at Nogal Peak, Angus, NM and the White Mountain Wilderness Area.
However, while locating that information - I did locate some material that does justify the article if it's significantly rewritten: one source claims that the structure was built by the CCC in 1940 and is listed on the National Register of Historic Sites. If I can locate confirmation from a more reliable source (the page I found that on would not meet WP:RS, but historic buildings are given registration IDs that should be on record with the US Gov't if this is correct). I'll do some more research and should be able to put together something more appropriate for a historical building either later today or tomorrow. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've completely re-written the article at Monjeau Lookout; the original was both an advert for a nearby resort as well as turning out to be a full cut/paste copyvio.
I was able to locate the registry information for the site on both national and state registries for historic places, and have worked that material into the new version. It's only a stub; but the problematic components that caused me to prod it have been removed, so I removed the prod tag. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carnival UK
Many thanks for your comments, it's nice to have your work complimented on Wikipedia occasionally. In response, I'm a little ambiguous on whether Carnival UK should have its own article. It is 'technically' a separate company, being the UK listed holding company of the Carnival Group, however it does all come under the banner of Carnival Corp/PLC, so I think making a new article for it would suggest it is disconnected in some way, when it has the same board of directors etc as the rest of the Carnival Group. Perhaps this should be put up for a consensus discussion somewhere, as it would also be useful to expand on the Costa Cruises division of the company too. Crazy-dancing (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
I truly appreciate your honesty and candid response. To receive such an informative response initially would have been extremely helpful. Although all your words don't speak truth to me and seem vague, I understand where your coming from and how you formed you decisions. Also it's funny because almost all of those edits are true even though you somehow know a source saying they are not. For example, Fairyland is across from the high school. Anyways, I am OK with it now that I have received a thoughtful response. Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciguyrules (talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 April 2010
But can't I claim to be the victim?
I said that Concord-Carlisle High School was across from Fairyland. This is in fact true and a staple of the high schoolers, as it is place many teachers and students go. Is that vandalism?
Hi, you said that my edits were not factual. Here's a pretty solid source. Would this suffice in the future? This http://www.getupngoadventures.com/html/fairyland.html and this http://www.getupngoadventures.com/html/fairyland.html Those are both quality sources that prove the accuracy of my information. Thanks! C.I. Ciguyrules —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciguyrules (talk • contribs) 03:20, 14 April 2010
Two issues: first, your edit takes the facts somewhat out of context, as "Fairyland Pond" appears to be the full name of where you are referencing. Second, that was only one of a series of posts that were all done by you that inserted a large amount of falsehoods, misinformation, and partial truths. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the version to which you reverted. There were a pair of good faith edits mixed in there too - but they were original research and needed to be removed as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I sort of remembered it, but didn't find it with a quick look through your archive. I'm hoping hu12 or someone of that caliber will step up for a nom statement. If not, I'll do it, but I think you could do better than me . tedder (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in no rush to get handed a mop; so if you feel more comfortable waiting for someone else, that's fine with me. Although I see no reason a nom by you would have any less weight than a nom by anyone else in good standing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Created a nomination for you: User:Barek/RFA; I didn't transclude the template, because you should be entirely capable of doing those steps. Let me know if you have questions, and contacting me via email wouldn't be a bad idea. tedder (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for feedback. I've added this information as it's the lessons we've learned and gathered from various parts of PayPal's sites, plus a quote which we included. I wish someone else had written it so that I could have read it months ago...I would have saved a lot of time.
A few questions
1) I understand all quotes need to be attributed, but how does one attribute a quote that was sent via email? Post it to a website, then reference THAT site?
2) Was that quote the only issue? Or am I not fully understanding the research material issue?
I'd like to help flush out this section, but looking for some guidelines.
The main issue is that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (I know, most people are surprised by this). Self-publishing the contents of an email is no different than stating it unreferenced here, both are under your control and are considered self-published - this is the same reason that most blogs and chat forums are not considered reliable sources for citing content.
What needs to be found are reliable, published source. Are there news websites, industry publications, books, verifiable scholarly research, or even press releases or the website of the company itself that can be used to substantiate the statements?
The issues: PayPal is sourced for their definition of chargebacks - the process is marginal; if it's standard for all providers, then no source is needed; but if PayPal is unique, then a source is needed.
A bigger issue is the criticism of that process - it doesn't provide a source as to who made the criticism and can be viewed as soapboxing and/or original research.
As you mentioned, the quote from the "PayPal Merchant Risk Mitigation Specialist" is unsourced, and one is needed. But likewise the criticism of that information needs to be sourced (for the same reason mentioned for the other criticism).
The last issue is the comparison to Google, which could be read as promotional for Google, and provides no source to support the comparison.
Thanks for the notice. I need to run an errand right now, but will post a reply to the additional questions when I get back in a few hours. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I put in an infobox, but it doesn't display his being the archbishop, and I don't know how to get the army service (See Hugo Black for example) to display, too. Please take a look. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Sorry for the late reply; it's actually a sunny day here today, so the wife and I have been out of the house today enjoying the weather (heading out again in a bit - just checking email and messages right now).
From an initial review of {{Infobox Bishop}}, there is no built-in functionality for the military service, and I'm not spotting a good secondary template to try embedding into the primary one. You might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity to see if they already have a solution, or if they would consider modifying (or willing to accept someone else modifying) their Infobox Bishop template.
Thanks! Although I should have mentioned that after adding the coding, it may be necessary to refresh the browser cache before the change takes effect. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you need to mention that to someone they probably shouldn't be poking around in their custom css files. . . ;) 700:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of being dangerous - slightly expanded on your idea to round the buttons like the other buttons (visible here). 700:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is that ANI is full of drama, complainers, bad editors, etc. Instead of arguing, what if we set a very high standard for Wikipedia. If you fail to meet the standard, you are blocked. However, the blocks are short. It would be expected that many people would be blocked.
If you are a busy body and argue, you get blocked for a week. If you edit really badly, also a week. If you accuse others of something and don't have a solid case, you are also blocked. If you plagiarize, even if innocently done (so you claim), you get blocked for a week. If you download a copyrighted picture, also a week block. Then all the crackpots who don't edit will get the message. On the other hand, indefinite blocks will be much reduced. You have to present a pretty good case to indefinitely block someone. If you fail to present a good case, the accuser gets a week block. If someone later runs for RFA, a week block is not the kiss of death as it is just a learning tool to prevent all this bad Wikipedia editing and drama.
This proposal I have NOT thought through long and hard but rather than be scared to say something, I am describing it to you. Call it the parking ticket aspect of Wikipedia. Now, Wikipedia is all argument, drama, and if there are blocks, many of them are indefinite so there is no middle ground.
A one week block also clears the mind. Every month, I pretend I am blocked and do not edit from the first of the month for a few days. Then when I come back, I am refreshed! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on realizing a healthy way to approach Wikipedia and remain refreshed. I also occasionally take a break for anywhere from a day to a week or more, although mine occur more randomly.
You have an interesting proposal; but I honestly don't think it would result in the benefit you envision, for a few reasons. In fact, I suspect it would cause more drama, not less - or at the very least, simply replace one source of drama with another, for no net gain.
First, it takes two to argue - so I'm not sure who would report violators, as reporting the other party automatically incriminates yourself. It also would require drawing a fairly fine line to differentiate between a healthy debate/discussion v. arguing - and invariably, the person blocked would likely claim the block is an over-reaction. You also have the issue of not wanting the admins to appear overly dictatorial; there are some who might claim that's already the case, but this proposal could easily push that view more into the mainstream view.
Because of all this, I doubt it would reduce the number of indef blocks, just cause an increase in short term blocks, which would have its own set of negative side-effects. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations
Congratulations Barek! Your RfA was successful. You are now an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I hope you have just as happy a time editing in the future as you did before your RfA. You may want to look at the New Admin School to read up on any tools you are unfamiliar with.
I second (third?) the congrats. I am only sorry I did not see your RFA in time to !vote in support. I am sure you will be a great admin. Take care. Dr.K.λogosπraxis02:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MER-C: I'm easing into the tools - been a while since I had admin tools (on a different wiki), and some of them have changed a bit in function from back then, so ... soon.
Johnuniq: nope - I never cared much for those. I appreciate the votes of support; but, posting those to everyone's talk pages goes against my natural tendencies due to my WP:WPSPAM work! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A reply befitting a dyed-in-the-wool anti-spammer. Very thought-provoking. I am impressed. And I agree, now come to think of it. Let's call it thanks-spam, thankspam for short :) Dr.K.λogosπraxis15:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voice an opinion. I don't care what the opinion is, yes or no. I would like one admin to make an opinion. One opinion is not canvassing. It is a call for an expert opinion. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators have no special standing in regard to the weight of their opinions in discussions; what matters is overall community consensus, not how many admins support a proposal. Strength of the opinions is impacted by how well the opinion is supported by existing established policies, not by the level of access rights by each person.
That said ... it appears you already have a couple admins who have voiced opinions on this. I haven't looked over the proposal in much detail yet, and probably won't have much of a chance until after the weekend. I'll take a look at that point and add an opinion if an additional one is still needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can you delete a full listing of where this Fraternity has it's active and Inactive chapters. Like any other fraternity or Sorority on Wikipedia, why shouldn't we have our chapters listed.
I could understand remove the links to individual websites but not the entire listing. To me that is pure BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.203.234 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 April 2010
From reading that, It states "The White or Yellow Pages. Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses are not encyclopedic."
the Fraternity listing does none of that. It lists the chapters of the National Fraternity. If you are going to remove our chapter listings, than you should be going into every Fraternity that has a listing of chapters and removing theirs as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by APD03 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 27 April 2010
So basically, I can go to any other Fraternity listing on Wiki and delete for that reason. Just because, the way you interpret what someone has stated has to be your way. Sorry I disagree, You first state Wiki is not a Yellow pages, and I agree and read what you asked and none of that is listed. If you asked us to move the links to another section that could be done as well. But the fact that you are deleting the list from your interpretation is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by APD03 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Barek's right. A large directory is not encyclopedic- for instance, we don't list all Wal-Mart locations. tedder (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I will have to accept what your decision was, I do not have to agree with it, and as for Tedder's comparison of a Fraternity to an International Super store like Wal-mart is a little of base. I would rather you compare apples to apples and not apples to bananas. If there is a project trying to clean up all the Fraternities and Sororities, why wouldn't you include their chapters, if a prospective pledge came on here to do research on the Organization, knowing where they have chapters is a big thing, And yes they could go to the official Website, but we use Wikipedia for short and straight to the point answers.APD03 (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to apologize to you for all my actions from earlier. If you were in a Fraternity or Sorority you kind of would understand why I was defensive. I get what you guys are trying to do, but as being an open source site, there should be standard procedures across the board. Burg (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, I understand the desire to expand knowledge of an organization to which you belong. It's just a question of doing that while still following Wikipedia guidelines.
There is a central WikiProject whose stated goal is "improving articles related to fraternities and sororities, in addition to associated umbrella organizations". That may be a good place to address concerns and questions about the group of articles. Their talk page to bring up questions is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spam-like edits
I've come accross User:Sheilamichell who is using their account to add unsourced information regarding awards from the charity Death Penalty Focus to various celebrity articles (about 70 celebrity articles in just two days). It looks like spamming, but the editor links to the charity's article instead of the Death Penalty Focus website. To me this would appear to be both a WP:BLP and promotional issue, but I'm unsure if I'm just overeacting. Since you're a wikiproject spam member I thought I'd go straight to an expert. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh20:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting ... the spamming is more of the internal link[4], relatively few external links to the organization are being used[5], so marginal on if WP:ELN or WT:WPSPAM would be relevant.
Most of the text additions seem to be related to awards given by the organization; but if no third party reliable sources can be found to help establish notability of the awards presented by the group, then my opinion would be that the link additions are promotional. But, perhaps the user adding them can provide more details.
I agree, it's not the typical spam linking to external sources. I feel a lot of good karma draining out of me when I remove mass charity links to articles, but if it's unsourced and overly promotional then it's appropriate and fair to remove it, leaving a note to the editor as to why its necessary. I'll go through the edits one by one and remove the ones that aren't cited to an independent source (which I suspect with be the majority, if not all). If the award isn't notable enough to be reported anywhere, then it shouldn't be included in the article. Thanks for your advice and cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh14:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, if you come across these types of edits in the future: This might a misguided attempt to increase the PageRank of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Penalty_Focus, which unsurprisingly has a link to http://deathpenalty.org. If WP didn't use nofollow, that increased PR would flow on to their website. It's a cynical way of viewing things, but years in the anti-spam business does that to you. MER-C09:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I combed through each of the user's edits and removed the majority of instances where the Death Penalty Focus group was added to articles without sourcing. Not only is it a single purpose account adding unreferenced information to articles in a seemingly promotional manner, it's also a BLP issue to attach an organization with controversial implications to any individual without sourcing the info. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh13:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Poly Shocker
Why would I not be able to edit the shovker page?
It is not vandalism but a fact what i posted. For that reason it should stay, it is not offensive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahpoly (talk • contribs) 00:24, 29 April 2010
It's an unsourced claim, and no sources turned up in a search [6] - meaning the entry is not verifiable. If you can locate reliable sources to help support the claim, then it could be added at that point. For example, please note in the article that the existing other uses are supported by outside sources to verify the claims. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what ?
What the heck are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmghosthost (talk • contribs) 02:17, 30 April 2010
I requested temporary semi-protection, you said you would semi-protect for a week, then protected it indefinetly. Just notifying you of this, in case it is a mistake. Brambleclawx00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thanks for pointing that out! It's odd, I remember selecting one week in the drop down, because I was deciding between 3 days or one week ... not sure how/why it reverted back to indefinite. Fixed now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move of ship article
I've commented at the RM. I'm still of the opinion that the move should take place, but it seems that NC-S needs to be rewritten. Mjroots2 (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you meant to say that you believe the move should not take place?
I responded on the talk page to continue the discussion - thank you for looking again at the guideline. I disagree with your position, but I can respect it. If NC-S needs to be discussed further, that's another issue entirely; although if it changes, it's an issue which will have an impact on a large number of cruise ship articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Machu Picchu
The Bot rejected my first post on Machu Picchu saying it did not like the Youtube link so I took it out. The edit then disappeared again so I added it again. I did not see anything about the other links being a problem until just now.
I am happy to remove the links to the personal web site but I believe there should be information indicating that the model is available in Google Earth and Google Maps. The 3D model provides more practical information than a thousand written words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmolsen (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got a reply from Tommy2010 on my talk page regarding Machu Picchu and also from you. I cannot reply to TOmmy because there is no Edit or reply link on his pages. How do I reply to him please? Is there any problem with me just updating the Machu Picchu page to say there is a 3D model of it available on Google Earth with no links added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmolsen (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barek,
Just wanted to thank you for your intervention and only administering a warning for me. You certainly seem to understand what a heartfelt subject this is for myself and others.
Thank you again for your help in the matter. Let's hope that the MIT user(s) don't continue to press the issue in the manner they had chosen, after the protection expires on the 8th.
Take care,
BC1121 (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
help with AfD process?
I'm wondering whether you might consider helping continue, or just looking into, an AfD process that I have begun. I do not have a wikipedia account, nor am I well versed in the technical processes involved in editor-level wikipedia revisions. I saw a recently-created page, Hope_May, that I thought did not meet the wikipedia notability guidelines. I've tried to start the deletion process of this page by placing an AfD tag in the article, but apparently (and understandably) only a user with an account can continue the process. Following instructions, I just notified the user who created the article that I had inserted an AfD tag, I saw your name on the user's talk page. Frankly, because I don't know anyone with wikipedia account, your name was all I could come up with: I figured I'd ask you if you happen to have a chance to glance at this article and see if you'd be willing to continue the AfD process, or to reverse what I've started it if I'm mistaken about wikipedia notability guidelines. I gave my justifications on the discussion page. Thanks for your time, and my apologies for bothering you with this somewhat random request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.75.174 (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you protecting Michel Shane, who continues to steal from people. Why don't you take a look at the numerous cases listed in michelshane.net before you protect this scam artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.52.241 (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are engaged in linkspamming, link hijacking, and POV pushing, as well as appearing to have a COI with the website you are promoting. Other IPs you have used have been blocked and the article was previously protected due to your abusive and disruptive edits. Continued such behavior is likely to result in continued blocks or potential blacklisting of your site. Please review WP:WELCOME, particularly the link to Wikipedia:Five pillars, in order to learn how to contribute to Wikipedia constructively in the future. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If referencing Michel Shane's pending lawsuits in Los Angeles Superior Court is "disruptive" then wikipedia is off course. There was never any edit made that wasn't fully turthful and a matter of public record in Los Angeles. Michel Shane has traded on his "credit" as a producer of "Catch Me if You Can" to rob people of their hard-earned money. He never worked on the movie..just sold the book rights. If you make an edit that has proven to be truthful how can it be malicious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.52.241 (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no connection to michelshane.net and frankly have no idea who is behind it. I suspect it is one of the people defrauded by Shane during the Kodak Theatre Christmas Carol production and listed on the site. Since the site does nothing but list numerous civil cases filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, it is not a POV site but simply presenting fact that are public record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.52.241 (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The appearance of a COI was due to a prior edit where it was stated "my link 'michelshane.net' was removed."[7] If this was just a comment about the link you added and not, as it came across, a statement of ownership of the link, then there's not an issue there.
While links to individual court documents may be acceptable as reliable sources, the link you have added fails both as a reliable source, as well as failing WP:ELNO for being an external link.
Additionally, link hijacking, such as this edit, is never acceptable behavior. Also, repeatedly edit warring over adding the link to an article despite being reverted and warned by multiple established editors is also not acceptable, such as can be seen here and here - which resulted in one IP being blocked and a prior protection of the article[8], is further evidence of abusive behavior. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your courteous reply. I am a novice at computers and just catching on to how things work. I've only had one IP address as far as I know through my phone company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.52.241 (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I glanced at the articles and didn't see any obvious issues - what tweaks are needed? Or have they already been done (I've been away for a few days, and don't have reliable internet access where I'm staying - so this may have already been done). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your edit to this article. The competitors section was revised several times following a discussion. The competitors are included due to their discussion in external reference material mentioning both the article subject and the competitor. Please use the discussion page before removing a whole section that has been already debated.
You claim prior discussions; but the article talk page was blank. The only discussion I could find anywhere were comments to your talk page (some of which were previously blanked) between you and one other person. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Abmin
Hiyas Barek - Looks like the anon who has been spamming the Vaporizer article has got himself an account at Abmin(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log). He's done some reasonable changes to vaporizer, and then managed to put his ubie stuff back in referencing 'skunkmagazine.com' and the patent. I can't view skunkmagazine to have any idea if its reliable, since its blocked by my work. I suspect I know what the answer is, but figured I'd run it past you. Thanks for any help. Syrthiss (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the spammed product site is already blacklisted, and the link is being intentionally altered to bypass the blacklist, the removal is warranted.
I'm not surprised that you couldn't view the ref link; the initial page on that site is a warning about the content being about currently illegal drugs with an "enter/leave" option - so most work filters would probably block the site.
The ref mentions an article "Vaporizeer reviews"; I tried finding it, but to read the reviews requires a subscription - so I can't see if it's significant coverage or a trivial mention. Given the title, my assumption is trivial, but I cannot confirm either way at this point. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, I tried adding Haven Hill should be separately listed under the Protected Areas of Michigan template box as a "National Natural Landmark", and I think all I did was screw it up. Please see if you can fix my error. Sorry to be a bother. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Thank you. As to your question, I don't know. It is an area within an area, albeit with a real Ford historical connection and a separate federal designation as a "National Natural Landmark". My father attended a conference at the main house at Haven Hill (before it as closed, went into disrepair and was thereafter burnt by arsonists) and I recall that he was really impressed by its beauty at the time. But that being said, it could all be handled in the Highland Recreation Area article. For now I think that should be the redirect, but I don't have BigTurtle's input, and he created the latter article. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
If you want to ask usurpation of the it.wiki username Barek, please follow ALL the instructions. You skipped directly to point 4 and forgot about the rest. While your request is incomplete, it will remain pending. Ciao, Ary29 (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tinnitus is your brainwaves, as measurable with an EEG
Cheers Barek!
Arrgh!
I badly want to undo your remove because people need to know this fact ASAP and it is too important to suppress or lock up in the bowels of the universities worldwide! But I appreciate your reasons. You didn't have to be so fast at it though. It isn't vandalism. :) Is there another Wikipedia that contains original research?
If you remove original research may I suggest you also direct the user to the correct place for it? Most of the new developments are done outside of the educational institutions by non-academics, these people need a place for posting one-paragraph memes of great importance. It is likely the removal of original research from wikipedia results in the premature death of many facts
Thanks Xenek (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the link, www.gptrac.org of Great Plains Telehealth Resource & Assistant Center on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telehealth and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telemedicine, hoping it would be useful for Wikipedia users who seek for more information about telehealth and telemedicine. However, it is deleted. The project is funded by the U.S. government, Grant number G22IT16263 from the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth: Health Resources Service Administration/DHHS. This organization is providing a service for free and they do not hire me to advertise them. It is confusing to me that a lot of external links Wikipedia allows as external links on these two pages are non-profit and not really relevant as much as this one. Additionally, this project is associated with the university (http://gptrac.ahc.umn.edu/) just like some links appear on the articles. Would it be possible for you to suggest me on my talk page what should I do in order to succeed in adding this link without being deleted? Thanks in advance for your help. Nan KT~11.21PM (CST)~Monday, May 10, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nan KT (talk • contribs)
I hadn't noticed that the IP had made edits that linked the current activity to the older activity (until you pointed that out, I had been uncertain if it was the same user behind the IP). I would have blocked longer had I seen that earlier. I have the talk page on my watch-list, so if the activity resumes I will block longer next time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spam-blacklist question
Hi, I'd like to ask your advise please. Few months ago an editor (not me) was severely punished for including in an article references to so called "racist" site. The info that was included in that article was not racist at all, and is found on few other sites, but the site the editor used is considered "racist" by many editors although I myself have never looked at it in details. So the question is, if there is a way to blacklist that site, that nobody ever again used it as a reference by a pure accident? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without having the link to review its past use, I can't give a specific answer ... but in general, blacklisting is usually reserved for URLs that have been repeatedly abused by multiple user accounts; unless there's consensus from a discussion at WP:ANI or similar high-visibility discussion forum that the site needs to be blacklisted.
Thank you. If I understood that right XLinkBot will work, if the link to the side is added only bt "unestablished editors". In situation I described above the editor was quite established, so even, if the site was added to the bot, it would not have prohibited the editor from adding info from that site to the article. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without knowing the details, I can't really add many more ideas. Was there a discussion at ANI about the URL at the time of the incident? Was there any consensus? I'm surprised a user who acted in good faith would be punished - unless they somehow disrupted the project to try keeping their link instead of an alternate source of the information. If the link hasn't been discussed at ANI, you could always bring it up there to see if consensus supports blacklisting despite it not being abused in the past; while theoretically possible, I haven't seen it done - at least not recently. To start the discussion would also require you posting links to the past incident, which could open up that full incident for further debate - without knowing more, I don't know if that's a path you want to go down. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user in question was not acting in a good faith. The user in question vandalized an article as protest against the article itself. It was not the right way to proceed about the article, and yes, there was discussion at ANI at that time. I am not questioning the punishment itself, but IMO the fact that vandalism added to the article was taken from a "racist" site (and it was discussed at ANI) made the punishment much more severe. Let's for a moment forget about the particular user, and about the particular site. My question is rather a general question about any racist sites at all. There are some racist sites that cannot be identified as such from the first glance. IMO any sites that have even shadow of being racist should be black listed on Wikipedia, first because we need no references to racist sites here, and second to prevent the editors to add info from racist sites by accident. It looks there's not such mechanism on Wikipedia now, but IMO it should be. You talk page is probably not the right place to discuss it. Thank you for your time. I have no more questions. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add external site
Hello Barek!
I try to add site about solyanka, but you delete it. Could you tell me why?
What i have to do, ti add site.
Discussions between interested editors, often taking place on user talk pages, have agreed that it's a helpful link. The person behind this IP address (who's also behind several others as well) has been attempting for many months to remove it for specious reasons; among other things, s/he said that it should be removed because it violated a quoted passage of Wikitravel policy. At the same time, the IP is spamming a related article. Given the overall editing pattern, it's plain that the person behind the IP is trying to spam in reverse. Nyttend (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I just realised that you reverted at Put-in-Bay; this IP is basically an SPA, doing nothing except making this type of edit at P-i-B and removing the link at KI. The IP also said that the link was a violation of the website's copyright. This isn't an issue of WP:LINKVIO — rather, the IP claimed that a link to tripadvisor's page was a violation of tripadvisor's copyright. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I had reverted the advert-wording addition to P-i-B, I had also seen the removal at Kelleys Island; but had agreed with that removal. If there has been prior discussion to keep it, I'll leave that link for now. But, I may re-open the issue - this time on the article's talk page so that the interested parties can get a more centralized discussion for future reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a regex expert, and have only worked once or twice with longer URL paths for the SBL ... but the code you used looks correct to me for only blocking that personal page. At least, it's how I would have coded it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm that I am requesting to usurp the username Barek on pl.wikipedia.org for purposes of my SUL account.
Also, if you can provide any guidance, the only other site not on my SUL is pl.wikibooks.org ... but I cannot find a page to request usurping the username Barek on that site. Do you know where I could request it, or could you help me with the request? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to advertise products. The list was simply a directory of commercial links with the only "refs" being primary sources pointing to the product home pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vball29
Hi Barek. As my AIV report is not being acted on, can you please block the edit-warring and spamming SPA if you are still available? Thank you. Dr.K.λogosπraxis04:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May have been a one-day incident as it doesn't appear to be an ongoing issue now. If it resumes, let me know and blacklisting can be re-evaluated at that point. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One-day incident but intense with massive edit-warring and sockpuppetry to boot. Very persistent spammer. However I can see your point. Fair enough. Thank you. Dr.K.λogosπraxis12:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you state that my entry on Healthy diet concerning Anti-Inflammation Diet is linkspam? I understand that I was a bit aggressive with my entries in Diet and Dieting (but if a normal person types those two in wikipedia or google, what do you expect that they are searching for, most of the times?), but my entry for Healthy diet was perfectly valid. If you want I will put it into another section of Healthy diet stating that WHO, AHA, etc, have not recognized it yet.
If you think that I am affiliated with Dr. Sears and his company, you are dead wrong. I am user of his dieting guidelines, and the only reason why I wrote of his two products in my article page is because they are quite simply the best in the marketplace and for very specific reasons. Once the marketplace will be producing products equivalent to these two, then I will be quite happy to endorse all of them impartially. I repeat that I am not affiliated with Dr. Sears, and the reason why I have put more than a day's worth in typing that stuff is because I believe that I can help people by being as exact as possible (if I write of two products that I find ideal because of very specific reasons, then what is the problem? It helps people understand what they should expect, and when the marketplace responds by producing products equivalent to these two along with the quality standard that Dr. Sears makes his products go through, then I will write that any of these products is ideal).
The Healthy diet article is not the place to advertise various diets. It is not a list of diets, nor a place to advertise diets. The article is on the general subject with guidelines from various official entities, not a place to advertise specific diets. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
please stop vandalizing the bhangra bands page
the information is being sourced from cassette covers and bands themselves
Be careful in your use of the term "vandalism" (follow that link and read it). False claims of vandalism are failing to assume good faith, and repeated false claims can be viewed as un-civil behavior, resulting in admin intervention.
Thanks for fighting the linkspam on some of the IQ-related articles.
Hi, Barek,
I see you just reverted some spam on some articles I watch. Thanks for doing that. It's demoralizing to me (a newbie Wikipedian) that many Wikipedia articles on IQ testing or related topics contain more spam that sourced article content. I'll try to add content gradually, as I check sources, and we can both clean away the spam. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, Thanks for taking a look. I'm not happy with the general wholesale deletions. I put in a semirevert, which tried to take into account the two antagonists' viewpoint. All of their objections as to the remaining sources are taken care of, I believe. In any event, one of them reverted that. I'm not particularly disposed to get into an edit war. That being said, their idea of relevancy is very narrow, and I strenuously disagree. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I looked it over. Unfortunately, I agree with removing the material from the Memory hole article. I wanted to find a way to keep the line "The phrases "memory hole" or "down the memory hole" are often used as an accusatory metaphor or analogy", but those who removed it are right that the sources don't really meet WP:RS and the line effectively amounts to analysis or original research.
For the other segments; I think the Amazon material is well sourced, but out of place in the article - a better place may be the Amazon Kindle article (I just looked, the material appears to already be included over there). The Wikipedia segment is interesting trivia, but likewise seems out of place; the problem is I'm not sure where it could reside - it's not quite a right fit for Criticism of Wikipedia, nor does it seem to fit into History of Wikipedia. There may be other articles that may be a better fit, I'm just not familiar with them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your removal of the external link that I added to the Keyword research page. According to the Wikipedia guidelines for external links: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content"
The link I provided has a great deal of relevant details demonstrating examples of the usage of keyword research in creating web content and is a perfect complement to the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.22.26 (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It also states on WP:EL (the same guideline you selectively quoted above) that "Disputed links should be excluded by default until there is a consensus to include them." If a link is removed, you should discuss it on the article talk page, not edit war to force inclusion of your link.
The site you are adding is a blog front-end for the commercial site seoelite.com which is pushing its search engine optimization software. It clearly fails WP:ELNO. Wikipedia is not the place to promote commercial software packages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but having an affiliate link on the sidebar doesn't not make the site a "front-end for the commercial site seoelite.com". Is the Google search engine a front end for every product that advertises in the side of the search results?
I added that link over a year ago to the Keyword research page and you are first person, of the many who have edited that page to dispute it. I don't think that qualifies as anything more than a personal issue or bad judgment on your part. Replacing the link is not a matter of a war but simply reinstating a valuable resource that had achieved condenses from many other reviewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.22.26 (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself brought up WP:EL; don't be selective, you chose to quote it to support your position, then chose to ignore it when the subsection WP:ELBURDEN was pointed out to you. Feel free to bring up the link at a relevant forum; either the article's own talk page, or at WP:EL/N, or review other dispute resolution chanels; but edit warring is not the appropriate way to add a link, particularly one that fails WP:ELNO. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point Roberts Page
Hi Barek:
I can already tell from the tone of your response to others' concerns that you will outlast me and that you are likely to win this dispute in the end. I'm not sure why people of your ilk cannot find something constructive to do, instead of devoting their time to destruction and the desire to win an argument. I personally added the majority of the external links you have now removed from the "Point Roberts" article, as a result of extensive research (over a five year period) on the topic. These links weren't added maliciously or by vendors trying to hawk their wares. They weren't harming anyone. They were put their to help to simplify life and foster the concept of community in the disparate collection of families and individuals who live on or visit this small peninsula. I feel that you used a very broad brush to eradicate these links. Could it be that a laser-like focus on each individual link might have been more appropriate? Or is it possible that you simply get off on starting arguments as a form of entertainment? Why would you remove links to additional information on local Whatcom County Parks, or the Cascadia trail? Do these links really violate your oft cited wiki guidelines? (Gnatdroid (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
First, please remember to assume good faith - your comments border on being a persoanl attack. Comment on content, not the contributors.
I suggest you read the guidelines that I identified in my edits. Wikipedia is not a community directory, a tourism guide, nor is it an internet directory or repository of links. I removed links primarily under WP:ELNO and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, but other guidelines and policies also come into play.
On the specific links you identified above, the links to the parks and trails belong in articles about those subjects, not on the Point Roberts article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very predictable response Barek. But what you don't seem to understand is that those beautiful parks are actually a significant part of tiny Point Roberts. So if what you cite is really the intention of the sacred rules, and not just your interpretation of them; then the constructive thing for you to do would have been to create the relevant articles if they did not exist, or create links to them if they did; all before eradicating this useful information. So you can take the high road and do the obvious right thing or continue this (for me) painful argument. Which do you think I think you will do?(Gnatdroid (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
What I think you believe is irrelevant.
What I did was the right thing, despite your not wanting to understand the site guidelines and policies. Just because an article on subject A does not exist, does not mean you should then insert those links into article B. Feel free to create the additional articles - there should be more than sufficient material for them; but don't demand that others must create them for you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on several variables. In basic, the pictures need to be verifiable that they are either free of copyright, or clear evidence that Wikipedia has been given rights to use the image. That can be done either directly on the website of the author/publisher (that authorization should then be linked to on the image page); or via an email from the owner of the copyrighted work. If via email, please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed for instructions on how to have that email authorization reviewed and approved by users who monitor the Open-source Ticket Request System ("OTRS"). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WTF
I was just writing to let you know that I did not appreciate you taking down another users wikipedia edit to the city of las cruces.
Clearly you aren't from las cruces because if you were you'd be appreciative of a cult icon stopping into town and then tweeting about it to his 1.5 million followers about us.
It's certainly more significant than the songs that nobody has heard of.
OUR culture is not YOUR culture so you have NO business dictating what is significant about it.
Just wondering why you removed the information I added to Wailea about the Shops at Wailea mall. Perhaps you thought I was adding information that you considered to be advertisement for certain vendors, however that isn't the case. I visited Maui recently and heard about a mall in Wailea, but when I tried to find information about it online there wasn't much. I thought that it would be helpful for anyone else searching for information about Wailea to know about the mall there. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for, to provide useful information to other people? Please do not delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GixxerSteve (talk • contribs) 10:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, when content is removed, discuss it on the article talk page before restoring it. Second, Wikipedia is not the place for highly promotional wording and advert-like content; likewise, in-line external links to commercial entities is almost never appropriate in the body of articles. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; not the yellow-pages or a directory, and not a tourism guidebook. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specific Carbohydrate Diet
All the owners of these photographs gave me the right to put the pictures on Wikipedia.
I am sorry that I was not familiar with the procedures. However, I did not put Wikipedia in any risk of
copyright litigation since the owners were happy to get their pictures on this website.
Is it OK if I ask the owners of the photographs to submit the pictures themselves?
Would that make the procedure more simple?Glida7 (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my earlier reply above. Having a claims of copyright permission are not enough, the claims must be verifiable. That can be done either directly on the website of the author/publisher (that authorization should then be linked to on the image file here); or via an email from the owner of the copyrighted work. If via email, please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed for instructions on how to have that email authorization reviewed and approved by users who monitor the Open-source Ticket Request System ("OTRS"). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your help. Thank you very much.
I have some more writing to add to the Specific Carbohydrate Diet page. I want to check it in advance with the editors of that page. Are you in charge to that page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glida7 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an improvement to an article, and do not have a conflict of interest with the subject, be bold and make your edits. But, if any changes are disputed or questioned, then you should at that point not immediately restore the content, but instead begin a discussion on the associated article talk page (also called the discussion page). Through discussion, everyone can express their views on the disputed edits, and the consensus of opinion should be used for determining if the desired edits (or some modified version of those edits) should be incorporated into the article. --- Barek-public (talk • contribs) - 15:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism - Warning #1
Barek, a cited collegiate article qualifies as a reliable source. This contradicts your revisions to a previous non-cited piece of information and constitutes vandalism. Please consider this your first warning and cite your source should you wish to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikimanzi (talk • contribs) 03:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Misrepresenting a source does not qualify as citing your edit. Perhaps you should re-read the article and the source, to see why your edit is not accurate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't appear to have an article on the other one. I considered making it a link to the sub-section of the novel that have a paragraph on the film - but it might be better to wait for the full article to be written. As more news is released, an article is likely to develop quickly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read WP:3RR, you will see that reversions of edits by banned users do not count as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule. – PeeJay18:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw sock-puppetry, but didn't realize it was by a banned user. Can you point me to the original user so I can look?
In the meantime, I've protected the article due to what looked like edit-warring. If the IP was a banned user, I have no problem dropping that to semi-protection, but just want to confirm first. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there's evidence of sock-puppetry resulting in several blocks, but no actual ban that I can locate; although the way the user is going, he's likely headed to a formal ban if there isn't one. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand where the linking to a webpage of noncommercial extent like bobinis-kitchen.com/quarkkeulchen breaks the rules of linking.
Especially, when the content of this webpage is definetly scientifical and not just entertainment or business.
As far as wikipedia declared, there are anyway no exceptional advantages that any webpage could get by beeing linked to from a wikipedia article.
I would appreciate if we could undo the spam declaration for bobbinis-kitchen.com.
Thank you for pointing out the additional link which was also not appropriate, I have removed it as well.
You behavior on Wikipedia seems to indicate a single-purpose account, with your only activities thus far being the addition of links to bobbinis-kitchen.com. I encourage you to explore wikipedia and expand content instead of promoting an outside website.
Links that explain the guidelines and policies that impact the link you are adding can be found in the warning messages which have been attached to your userpage. I encourage you to review those pages, as repeatedly re-adding a disputed link without first getting input from other members of the community is not appropriate behavior. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just wondering about the recipe thing. Bonzothedog wrote to me asking. The links don't appear to be spammy, but instead, simple recipes. I can't find policy on recipes. Could you please point me in the right direction. Also, I notice that other dish articles have ext links to recipes. Please advise. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As was pointed out in the initial warning at User talk:Bonzothedog, "If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it." Yet, the user proceeded to re-add the link without waiting for discussion. I stated this again in my reply above, as well as it being mentioned in the second warning to Bonzothedog. The correct approach is to seek concensus, not to edit war over the content. Additional help can be found at WP:Dispute resolution, which clarifies the correct approach is to seek consensus either by starting a discussion about the link on the article talk pages, or a related Wikiproject; in this case WT:FOOD or WT:ELN.
The link itself goes against WP:ELNO #4 and #11, and in some additions there's also an issue with WP:NOT#REPOSITORY.
Related to ELNO#4; to date, the only edits to article space by Bonzothedog (talk·contribs) have been to add links to this one site. This is common behavior of single purpose accounts who exist to promote a specific URL. I encouraged the user in my earlier reply (above) to make improvements to articles, not just to add this URL.
For ELNO#11; I fail to see where this blog site is created or maintained by any expert in the field of German cuisine. The site's own "about" page makes clear the site is written by amateur cooks. The links being added provide no context, no historical information, not even nutritional information - it's simply someone's recipe blog presented with photos.
For articles where existing recipes exist, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY can also be an issue. Wikipedia does not exist to add links to every recipe posting. No policy or guideline requires or even guarantees that external links must be added just because they exist; if an existing recipe already exists on an article with only slight variations, then the new link would be redundant. In that case, the links should be weighed on their own merits of authoritative source, additional content on the sites beyond just the recipe considered, and over-all quality of the site. In many cases, a discussion on the article talk page is best to determine which the community agrees is the better resource to be linked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Barek,
I think, I understand your point of view in parts. I hope you can understand mine and Anna's (see above), too.
The wikipedia-rules for linking that you quote seem to be inconsistent. When one link is legal and the other link to the same type of inforessource is illegal. On the other hand is the conclusion inconsistent that a user like me that has linked round about 5 times to the same site but different pages is guilty of linkspaming.
To return to the path of the righteos man I would like to initiate a discussion on some of the articles I tried to cultivate a little bit. As you see linking isn't my only usage of wikipedia.
My next approach will be to ask you (I will not change the article without your permission):
Don't you think we could add the url: http://www.bobbinis-kitchen.com/stuffed-cabbage/ to the external links on the article cabbage roll?
Please compare the existing links to national variations of that recipe with the one I suggested. No difference.
A german recipe is missing and of great importance to complete the whole article.
My improvement to the article was to denote the german name "Kohlroulade" and to link to a good german example.
How can we understand the world without examples?
Thank you for your feedback.
Bonzothedog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzothedog (talk • contribs) 02:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bonzothedog,
Please don't misunderstand, I am not the final say on what can be added to article - no one person has that control. Wikipedia is a community project, built on consensus - but with a framework of policies and guidelines to help provide high-level concepts to guide the development of the site (the policies and guidelines having also been built on community consensus). I appreciate that you are beginning to add to other discussions, and I also encourage you to continue doing so as well as continuing to be bold and expanding the content about the subjects.
However, when there's a content dispute, there are standard paths to resolve those that can be taken. The most common is to discuss the disputed addition on the individual article talk pages. If community consensus supports the change, then it gets restored. Otherwise, it needs to be addressed to either find alternative (and hopefully better) sources for the information, or if the problems cannot be overcome, then it should be left out until such time that consensus changes.
I agree that recipes can be helpful - but I had two primary concerns. The site itself seems to be a non-authoritative personal blog; as well as your behavior of only adding links drew your intent of using Wikipedia into question. This is why I place a high degree of value on your involvement in expanding article content to show you have other interests beyond adding the link. If you have any questions on adding content, I am more than willing to assist in that regard.
You cite a lot of guidelines and other WP... Most of these lead to nothing about this, and some lead to project pages that cite nothing.
But, really, an article about a German dish could really use an external link with a recipe. If you are worried about polluting External links section with too many items, address the amount of items, if/when there are too many. Visitors certainly find a link to the recipe useful. If you are worried about promoting a site, well, the recipes added in these cases are links that do not have a bunch of ads. The links, although dot com, are basically the recipe, and nothing more. They add value to the article, and serve visitors.
Furthermore, your comment: "Thank you for pointing out the additional link which was also not appropriate, I have removed it as well." does not seem to seek to inform, but rather to antagonize.
I suggest that there are no guidelines that state specifically that these external links are inappropriate. If you think this user is, with a single-purpose, trying to promote a site, then maybe we should suggest that he/she find alternative recipe sites to add to external links. In the mean time, I think the recipes help Wikipedia visitors. And, that outweighs other factors.
The bottom line: Please ask yourself what we are trying to do here. I think it is to serve Wikipedia visitors. I believe what this editor is doing, is that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(By the way, as tone and manner are very important, but often difficult to communicate with keystrokes, my demeanour is intended to be: polite, respectful, honest, but quite to the point). Best wishes Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anna,
The "other link" comment was not intended to antagonize. I should have clarified that the other link was to a forum post containing a recipe. Forums are simply not appropriate.
As to my earlier links - all were directly relevant - perhaps you can point out which ones you feel "lead to nothing about this, and some lead to project pages that cite nothing", and I will attempt to expand further. If you read the context where I linked them, I feel the reasons are already fairly clear (for example, the project pages were to provide helpful links in finding relevant places to start larger discussions per the dispute resolution process, which is also clearly appropriate as we have, well, a dispute.) I'm quite happy to start a discussion at one of those if neither of you are willing; although if I were either of you, I would start a discussion on the individual article talk page to see if consensus exists for the links. I have suggested this multiple times, as it's the most appropriate place to start a discussion when a person has a link which they added removed.
I am not saying that recipes are not useful - I have never stated that. I am saying that this particular site is problematic, both in the way it's being added, as well as its authoritativeness of the site.
You again claim that no guidelines or policies exist that say these links are inappropriate. In fact, I linked to a guideline (two points in it) and a policy, as well as explaining the relevance of each. Please re-read my earlier post, as you seem to have brushed them off with your earlier "these lead to nothing about this" comment, which ignores the direct relevancy of the guideline and policy. If you feel there are reasons these should not apply, then my earlier statements on the most appropriate paths to establish community consensus applies. To be blunt, my user talk page isn't the best place to get community involvement in the discussion. Either the individual article talk pages are the places to weigh each link on its own merits for each article, or the project pages are the place to get broader involvement from the community on the links overall. As you both seem to be resisting, I'll go ahead and start the discussion at WP:ELN. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No hard feelings on my "antagonize" comment. The new editor is very polite and nice, and I was just feeling protective.
I just reread my post, and I came across a bit curt. My apologies.
As for the policy links you cited, I just didn't see anything clearly objecting to the recipe external links. I didn't read all, as I am having terrible trouble connecting to Wikipedia. I will comment further at ELN. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for starting a discussion. If the IP refuses to engage in constructive discussion and instead only creates personal attacks ... well, that doesn't bode well for developing consensus for his version. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you lookup Spencer Tunick Barek on Wikipedia,you'll find the pic with Banksy and James DeWeaver are on Tunick's wiki page when Tunick first went to Australia !
In mid-2000,on a trip to Sydney and Melbourne, Australia, he met up with the Gen-X pastellist, visual activist, and recluse James DeWeaver in Byron Bay where he stencilled a parachuting rat with a clothes peg on its nose above a toilet at the Arts Factory Lodge. In 2008, the owners of the backpackers found out its value and relocated it. This stencil can no longer be located. Banksy posed nude for Spencer Tunick along with DeWeaver and forty others in this same time period, the resulting photo can be seen on DeWeaver's site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.88.206 (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Free Spreadsheets offered on various bond and swap related pages
You have arbitrarily deleted the spreadsheets that I have made available through external links on various pages (United States Treasury security, Corporate Bonds, Interest Rate Swap, Asset Swap, Z Spread).
I teach training courses at all of the major investment banks on these subjects, the spreadsheets are very popular and are offered for free.
What exactly is the problem here? Yes they are offered without citations; they are practical and real rather than purely academic and theoretical, is that the problem?
This kind of action will gradually diminish the value of Wikipedia articles. Can I strongly but politely suggest that you look at the content offered and reflect carefully before (thoughtlessly it would seem) deleting them?
Regards,
Peter Leahy
(By the way I do seem to have used 2 different logins 'peterjleahy' and 'pjleahy' - nothing sinister here, just a little disorganised!)
Wikipedia does not exist to promote links to your own website. You have a clear conflict of interest with adding the links; additionally, your site was already discussed at WP:ELN where you previously participated in those discussions. Re-spamming the links after being removed just compounds the issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that your comments still convey no suggestion that you have looked at the content offered.
I should also say that the the spreadsheets have been downloaded by plenty of users - about 40 even during the brief time you left them up, no other such information is available on Wikipedia.The spreadsheets are detailed and exact calculations that can not be incorporated into the Wikipedia text. They are offered absolutely free of any charge, comittment or registration.
I feel that your approach is over zealous and reveals a lack of concern for good content, just an obsession with arbitrarily imposed rules and ‘because you can’.
The spreadsheets provide practical and real information on the products concerned. It is, I feel, worth pointing out that most of the useful content of, for example, ‘Corporate Bonds’ was provided by me after our last discussion, this has not been changed since in spite of all the rather insulting comments made about my lack of convincing expertise, gleaned exactly how I wouldn’t know!
I have a depressing sense of foreboding that you are already in the process of selecting a similarly minded friend amongst the Wiki-police who will fully support you, and going by my last experience, in rather personal and insulting terms.
You refer to the content as ‘spam’. This is casually insulting and again suggests that you have not troubled yourself to explore the content offered. You plainly feel that exercising your authority is more important than relevant and accurate content. The content is the product of hard work and expertise and is offered for free on 5 pages to which it is directly relevant and adds to the content of those pages.
I challenge you to ask any bond / fixed-income expert whether the spreadsheets are a useful addition to the pages concerned. Please take up this challenge but not by using one of your cosy pals that automatically agree with you. Perhaps it would be a better idea to embrace and encourage people like me with directly relevant industry experience rather than to work at driving us away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjleahy (talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the content as well as your consistent pattern of self-promoting your website prior to posting my reply. As to your other comments; I have never selected "a similarly minded friend" - last time, per WP:DR, I openly posted about the URL at WP:ELN (now archived) and posted a link to that discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance (link). The fact that multiple other members of the Wikipedia community disagreed with your self-promoting of the link is not some grand conspiracy - it's a statement the appropriateness of the site as an external link, and a user with a conflict of interest in particular being the one to add those links. Note, your expansion of article content was and still is welcome; your linkspamming of your website is the only issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you removed the link to my weblog, Guzzo the Contrarian. I have been running my non-partisan contrarian weblog since 1996 and it fits within the Contrarian Investing guidelines. I am a true contrarian individual investor.
Before you try to tell me that it is a spam link, could you please explain to me why my link is more spammish than the link to Warren Buffett's link, who charges investors for his services? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PharmAZy (talk • contribs) 04:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the history here, and don't have time to research your past edits to find out; but you two seriously need to either work out your differences, or just stop interacting with each other whenever possible. Taunts, unwelcome posts to each other's talk pages, etc are clear violations of WP:CIVIL. If your interests overlap to the point that interaction is unavoidable - then remember to discuss content and not to make personal accusations - if content disputes continue, use WP:DR for suggestions on how to resolve issues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to go file based on his conduct then, this is ridiculous. I don't have a history with the guy other than the removal of some trolling comments he posted to someone else on the Joust (video game) talk page, no different than the comments removed by this user here. Then he pops up on my talk page with his taunts, then puts them back after I remove them, which is where you came in. Now he's popping up on talk pages of people I had discussions with doing the same taunting. How is this a "content dispute"? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likely a bad assumption on my part - like I said, I hadn't had time to research the past edits. I mistakenly assumed a longer history of interaction. I'm going out again in a few minutes, and likely won't be on-line again until late tonight or sometime tomorrow. Based on what you've described, an etiquette report to get others who have time to review more closely may be a good choice. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UBX
Hi, I noticed you make userboxes and wanted some feedback on mine and what to do with it now (I already listed it in the new userboxes page)
Like I said, you've done all you can. To clarify: the steps: create it, done; add it to a category, done; and use it on your user page, oh - not yet done. but that's it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty clear that John is against the link. While he initially suggested moving the link to that location - the last post by John, in reply to your assertion that "the link is neutral and positive for the project", was to say "I don't think so, per WP:ELNO". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Misconduct and bias against external competing wiki pages
Your recent attempt to characterize a link to a competing wiki provider as "linkspam" is an obvious abuse of your position as an administrator. This destructive conduct does an overall disservice to Wikipedia, even when considering your removal of true linkspam. Wikipedia may have an agenda to censor their competitors, but please, at least be honest about the rationale of a removal. Masking such an effort by referencing linkspam rules is intellectually dishonest and downgrades both the quality and utility of Wikipedia.
If you disagree, please read the linkspam rules yourself, and try to find a specific clause that corresponds. An external link to a neutral comparison wiki obviously complies with linkspam and your claim here stating "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion" makes it evident that you're putting quite a spin on this. To claim that a comparison wiki maintained by a community of volunteers is a "promotion" is an obvious mischaracterization.
Your actions are shown to be driven by emotion. This is clear because after you destroyed a whole article comparison page using the rationale that a comparison page violates both wp:directory and wp:linkfarm, you destroyed it again after the community restored it in a way that complies with your personal interpretation of the rules (that is, with links and names removed). Your continual removals of compliant and useful information suitable to researchers demonstrates a compelling need to "win" what you're seeing as a "battle" against the community. This is evident from your secondary rationale from the re-removal, where you state that the content is "not notable" (which you later contradict). Please try to take a more cooperative approach. If you have another administrator do the secondary removals, it will add credibility to the merit of removal.
--Jgombos (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, being an administrator is irrelevant; I'm an editor just as you are. In fact, the discussion about the table began prior to my becoming an admin, and your last post to the talk page was prior to my becoming an administrator. Claiming that it was an abuse of my position as an administrator is demonstrably false on multiple fronts.
Regarding the link, please read WP:ELNO #12. It's really quite clear. If you would like to discuss the link with others, feel free to refer to WP:DR - per dispute resolution methods listed at that page, I think the simplest route would be to start a discussion at WP:ELN, but other options exist. I commented last month about the link at Talk:Online post office#Wikia link, but as yet you have not replied.
You claim that "the community restored it". It was you that restored it; claiming it was done by the community is quite a spin. Rather than legitimately fix the issues, you maintain trivial marketing variations and fail to provide either a framework for inclusion criteria or a neutral source to establish specified companies as notable. Again, this is mentioned at Talk:Online post office#Wikia link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistent removal and contradictory actions
Your initial stance against a comparison page on the grounds of wp:directory and wp:linkfarm expressed in Talk:Online_post_office is fair enough, in principle. You made it clear that comparison pages (like Comparison_of_webmail_providers) is not at Wikipedia standards when there are links to outside companies, and in the end the community accepted this. Then later when you discovered similar content outside of Wikipedia, you did a 180 degree reversal of your stance, proposing to violate the very rules you were enforcing to begin with. Please try to be more consistent. --Jgombos (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. (I was pretty sure the bright-line 3RR wasn't crossed though. I had quite a number of edits that were responses to legitimate threads, but maybe you counted all of my edits in there yesterday.....?) In any case, yes, the reversions were getting pretty excessive. BigK HeX (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appologize if you were below 3RR; I didn't review all the edits closely enough, so may have accidentally included edits to other threads in the counts. I was trying to warn all parties that appeared to be involved, so no one party could claim they were being singled out for whatever reasons. --- Barek (talk) - 14:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear sir
I am trying to repair an article that carries a NPOV warning.
Hey Barek. As a ships guy with a great deal of experience in spam issues, I wonder if you could take a look at this conversation. It may well be a over-optimistic, but I sense a possibility for rehabilitation may exist. Thanks. HausTalk17:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of that, I'll take a look at the discussion that you linked to later today - I'm too busy in the real world at the moment, but should have time later tonight. --- Barek (talk) - 18:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. While I agree that the user has shot himself in the foot several times, for example your observation on forum shopping, etc... I think ignorantia juris may be a consideration here. Cheers. HausTalk19:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was the one that tagged it for speedy deletion. I have been in discussion with people who have been working on the article at my talk page, and was just about to change the tag to PROD to give them a chance to bring it "up to snuff". Per WP:BITE, could we perhaps restore the article, or maybe userfy it to the article creator, to give it some time and to give the newbs a chance to learn a bit about Wikipedia? Thanks! --Jayron3204:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IP-hopping vandal with a grudge against me, who you put in a lot of work blocking a night or two ago, is back and busy vandalizing pages I've recently done cleanup work on and such (examples [11], [12], [13]) as well as his usual Howard Stern-related obsessions [14], [15]. Any way to get some rangeblocks in place, or will we have to play whack-a-mole again? Thanks very much. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest bringing this up at ANI due to the post on your user talk page. It looks like most of the new IPs have been blocked; but I'll sweep through and add any that were missed. I'm not certain how large of a range block would be needed - part of the whack-a-sock exercise was to collect data-points. If I remember right, at least three different ranges were involved, but I can try looking again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some material to some pages and then received a message from you. This is the first time I've edited anything on Wikipedia, and I'm not sure what I've done that might be incorrect. Grateful if you could let me know.
Your edits seem to be for the sole purpose of promoting a book. Please be aware that Wikipedia does not exist to advertise or promote products. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Barek,
Many thanks for taking the time to reply to my question; I appreciate that you must be busy. I must say, however, that I'm still left confused about your view on this: it seems to me arbitrary at best, and almost capricious. In what sense was my addition 'solely to promote a book.' It is true that I wish for the book to be known about, but in as much as it is a book set in - and largely about my official work in - Orlando I cannot see why it is inappropriate to mention it in the section "In popular culture'. There are other books mentioned on that page and in that section, so why aren't they 'solely promoting a book'? Additionally, there are references to sports franchises, cars, bands and all sorts of other things that must surely, on the same criteria you apply, be 'solely to promote' a product. Further, there are actually Wikipedia pages completely and only about books. How are they not promoting themselves?
In my entries I specifically did not say that the book was good, nor did I recommend it in any way. I did provide a link to the publisher, but only because when I read the Wikipedia guidelines it encourages you to substantiate an entry with references. The best way to substantiate that my book exists, and that I'm not just making it up, or vandalizing the site, is to provide a link to the publisher. If I've misunderstood that, then the simple solution is to remove the reference to the publisher. Consequently, I cannot understand how I was 'promoting' the book.
The only other aspect of this that seems to potentially apply to me is the section on autobiography and conflict of interest. I read these guidelines carefully. Wikipedia does not prohibit such entries, it only encourages you to think carefully before writing an entry. It is true that I wrote the book I mentioned in my edits, but I cannot make that clear to the public as Wikipedia prohibits this (for, it seems to me, good reasons). Nevertheless, if I'm fair and objective, why should it matter? Are you seriously suggesting that there aren't many books (or for that matter, other things/products) that appear legitimately on Wikipedia that weren't written by the author/manufacturer or somesuch? Most of them probably take the precaution of writing under an alias or getting a friend or colleague to do it, but I chose to be more direct in what I did.
After your first messages last night I re-added my book to the Orlando page, but without the link to the publisher. It was removed again by someone else (I shall copy this message to that person also). I am, as you probably can tell, somewhat frustrated at this as it seems so unfair. I added edits to other pages last night (all of which you deleted and I've not re-visited). In the case of Krishna Maharaj and Chantal McCorkle - both convicted felons - their Wikipedia pages must surely have been set up and run by them (or close friends and supporters) for the purposes of presenting their cases. I am totally unable to understand why my adding the existence of my book, which discusses their cases, is advertising or any less promotional than the very existence of their pages. In the case of Slick Rick - also a convicted felon, whose case is discussed in my book - I expect also that his page is, if not created and sustained by him, at least managed by those close to him. I believe in all these cases that if a scholar or someone who is even just casually interested in these people were to use Wikipedia to research them, they should know about a book that deals with their cases.
I would be grateful if you could, when you find the time, address these points that I raise.
Barek,
I think you misunderstand. Planetimplant.com is am informational site and requires no membership fee and does not sell anything. It is both for the public to increase understanding of dental implants and for dentists, manufacturers and laboratories to join together to better understand and advance the field.(1009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oraldr (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this is seriously like chasing my own tail -- you only deleted this because the page it's associated with is missing -- AGAIN ignoring updates on the talk page. PER WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES I've been trying to update, resurrect deleted pages I thought were in error, and I have about 5 different admins deleting stuff willy nilly. PLEASE CAN SOMEONE HELP ME HERE?!?
--Kevjkelly (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to review WP:BIO as well as WP:NPOV for how to establish a person as notable under Wikipedia guidelines and to be better phrased into a neutral encyclopedic tone. If you want, I can restore the article into your userspace (ie: article location would be user:Kevjkelly/Amber Dawn Lee) where you can work on it further until it's better sourced and the wording made less promotional. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be much appreciated, thank you!
could you possibly please restore Renegade Theatre Experiment to my userspace as well -- I was updating it to more strictly comply with the Wikipedia guidelines and removed potentially copywritten materials.
Barek, while I accept that there were errors in my html (which is obviously a slim excuse), the fact remains that you have repeatedly deleted any attempt to cast a positive view on network marketing. Your excuse that my two measly sentences were redundant is plainly untrue. There is nothing in the article whatsoever that would evidence that claim. Either delete the entire article, which is manifestly negative from end to end, or allow the fair inclusion of positive material, of which there is a great deal extant in the world. In my view, your approach to so-called editing amounts to a flagrant attempt to control the message. Vejeestu (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)vejeestu|talk]]Vejeestu (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, you seem to be arguing within the text. Moreover, the point that MLM is legitimate is already demonstrated in the text (ie: redundant). The only additional material is mentions of authors and links to their work - not expanding the understanding of MLM, only advertising books related to the subject. The fact that the ref tags were broken was secondary.
If you disagree, standard process is to begin a discussion on the article's talk page where the Wikipedia community can follow the dsicussion and comment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a talk page, but the fact remains that "redundant" is a judgment and terming useful references "advertising" is also a judgment justifying unwarranted interference in ANY and EVERY attempt to balance this distinctly negative page. You are masking personal prejudice under a thin veneer of being a wikicop fighting "redundancy" and "advertising". Vejeestu (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages for every article can be found by clicking the "Discussion" tab at the top of the article; for convenience, here's the link: Talk:Multi-level marketing. Please be aware too that each page has a "history" tab, (here's a link), which makes clear that your claim of a bias is false. The history makes it clear that many other editors have added or removed content, with relatively few edits by me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I fully agree with your removal in this edit, which was material related to a specific company, and which failed to establish any relationship to the industry as a whole. Such content belongs on an article about that specific company (if it has one, or can be established as notable enough for its own article), not on the MLM article. --- Barek (talk) - 18:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be some potentially meaningful content buried in that edit somewhere - but it's so poorly written as to be little more than jibberish. Additionally, the material starts with the phrase "But in late December of 2008 ...", yet has no discernable relationship to the prior paragraph as well as seemingly out of place in a timeline. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly its poor prose, but wholesale deletion of an edit of this quality seems to be a good way to discourage useful editorship. We have plenty of users who are happy to improve the writing. I'll revert and tweak a bit. --Elvey (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was well beyond "poor prose" status; it was incomprehensible as written and also appeared to contain references that would make it out of context for where it was inserted. But if you feel you can rewrite it (I actually suggest starting from scratch rather than attempting to rephrase what was originally inserted), feel free to give it a try. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a frequent contributor to wp:wpspam I thought you might find this script useful to add to your monobook. The simple explanation of its use is that if you type "L:SomeDomainName.com" into the regular Wikipedia search box it will take you to a linksearch results page. I created this because when reverting spam I often find myself wanting to run a linksummary link but end up having to create a new section on my talk page or the spammers where I preview a linksummary link.
If you (and the two others who I am notifying about this) agree that its useful to have this I'll ask the original script writer to add it to the existing namespace redirection script.
Let me know what you think. 701:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll give it a try and let you know if I see any issues and how well it works. My normal way of doing those is to click an "admin tools" link (I use a hook in my monobook.js to add the link between "my preferences" and "my watchlist" at the top of every page), and that takes me to User:Barek/tools where I have a direct link to Special:LinkSearch ... so your script will save me a couple steps. Thanks again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ... well, not sure what is wrong, but can't seem to get the script to work. First tried importing it and resetting the cache; then tried copying in the full script and resetting the cache; but didn't do anything either time. I'm sure it's an error on my part, just not sure what. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a browser issue? What browser are you using? If you type in l:test.com in the regular wikipedia search box it should briefly flash the regular search results and then take you to the linksummary style page. 703:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My main browser is Firefox 3.6; but I also just tested it in Internet Explorer 8.0. I can try on Chrome and IE 6.0 tomorrow on another machine. So far, it doesn't seem to be working. I tried removing all other scripts from my monobook.js, in case of a conflict, and tried disabling all of my Firefox add-ins; but still nothing so far. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this script designed to work in both monobook and vector? I still use monobook, so had been testing in monobook.js ... if the script was designed for the vector theme and vector.js, that might explain it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Tested in vector theme, with same lack of result so far. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. Working in Firefox 3.6 for me - both monobook and vector. Do any of those scripts other shortcuts work (e.g. T:coiq for template:coiq)? If none of those shortcuts work then I'm wondering if a firewall is blocking the page redirection request (thinking its like a popup or browser hijacking). One of the other testers seemed to have no problems. 704:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to reply sooner ... none of the other shortcuts were working for me either - so there may be some outside factor interfering with the redirect (the theory that it's being blocked because one of my security programs thinks it's a page hijacking seems plausible). --- Barek (talk) - 19:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pepsi
Thanks for undoing my edit on Pepsi I was not to sure if I got it right well I guess that will come in time. btw is it proper to mark messages like this "minor edits"TucsonDavid (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the lead section on the Pepsi article does need expanding. But the lead should be a high-level overview of the entire article, not just a restatement of what's in the history section (which, in this case, was the very first section after the lead).
I was hoping to talk about your deletion of Jolt (Transformers). It was deleted for lacking notability and third party sources. I didn't recreate the page, I wrote a fresh page, much smaller, no non-free images, complete with MANY sources. It deserves to stand on it's own merits, not the deletion decision of the old, bulky, page with no sources. Let me know what you think. Mathewignash (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the same issues still apply; and I feel the suggestion from the AfD to turn this into a disambig with links to the mentions in the main articles is the best solution. However, if you disagree, I would be happy to restore this (or both) versions into your namespace so that you can request a review at WP:DR. Let me know. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to bring this up to a complaint, I just wanted to submit a better version of the page that would be acceptable to wikipedia standards. Would it be rude to start a dispute? I didn't want to antagonize anyone, just write a better page. Mathewignash (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:DR is part of the standard Wikipedia process and provides a standardized means for having a deleted page re-evaluated, so not rude at all (repeated requests for the same page could be disruptive, but that's not the case here to the best of my knowledge). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will try to use the page then. Problem is I'm not netirely sure on how to use it. How/where do I make the case for my new page to replace the old deleted one? Thanks. Mathewignash (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OOPS! My mistake ... the link I meant to provide for deletion review is WP:DRV. Instructions for the process are at that page. Very sorry for the confusion.
I'll go ahead and restore the article into your namespace, so that it's available for reference. I'll post the link to your talk page once it's available. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at how I put it in (in your actual "edit", it keeps inserting a break which cuts off the beginning of the link. damned annoying. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
The problem appears to be the symbol " [ " ... you can fix it by instead coding the link as:
Wowpedia is now at AfD. I left a comment there, you may want to as well. Thanks for leaving me the note after I declined the speedy. Protonk (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hello sir I found that no such unlocking information on wiki so I submit this I know ref is nofollow so please let me know the mistake I am doing.
I feel that this information including website which has information about unlocking can be here. Please let me know how can I improve my mistakes.
I am not sure how to cite my claim. But on apple.com there is an option after selecting "Buy iPhone" that says "Live chat" which connects you with an official Apple representative. I have asked them about the release date of the White iPhone, and they have stated by the end of 2010. Go see for yourself. Besides, nothing should be considered official unless there is a press release from Apple on the Apple website.
Eventually it is likely to be published by a reliable source. The problem for now is that the current statement is sourced; so we need to wait for the sources to catch up before the article can be updated with a new source making the new claim. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
decorationpoint.com unfairly blacklisted
Hello Barek,
I feel I have unfairly been taken spammed by my competition simplysteonbach.com on wikipedia. We have had some bad blood through competition and I must admit he is much more tech savvy than myself. I do not recognize the IP addresses you have filed as spam clearly. Today I tried to make a comment on the file cuckoo clocks and was unable to because of this block. I ask that my block be taken away on these grounds. Thanks you - Alan support@decorationpoint.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanb23DP (talk • contribs) 04:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can request a site to be removed from the spam blacklist by adding a request at WP:SBL#Proposed_removals. However, due to the history of this site being repeatedly spammed over a period of more than two years, the site is unlikely to be removed. Also, be aware that requests from site owners are rarely honored - the most frequent removals are when requested by established editors. Even then, if only a handful of pages were needed as refs to article additions, it would be more likely that the individual pages would be whitelisted rather than removing the entire site from the blacklist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Barek. I don't like the fact that you keep deleting my updates to Microsoft Ants. You said you deleted it so not to promote Ants. However, the information on the page is out of date. The final sentence says that "As of January 31, 2006, Microsoft's Zone retired Ants because of the lack of players."
However, this is not the whole truth as ants is not retired, and can still be played on Voobly. It is important to let people know that ants is not retired and can still be played online, so please put back this fact. This was not an advertisement, just an update that ants is not dead! I tried to reference this truth (not advertisement) but the webside is blacklisted. You can see for yourself that this is a fact and that I am just trying to let people know updated information about ants. games/view/21 --- I still cant type voobly dot com, but if you put that in with that extention, you will see that Microsoft ants is still very much online. This needs to be added online, or people who read this will assume that ants is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To start, I have only removed the mention once; however, the mention has been removed by multiple established Wikipedia editors.
Also, please be aware that material on Wikipedia should be sourced to reliable sources, and argumentative content does not belong in article text as you were adding.
Lastly, Wikipedia is not the place to advertise places to play Microsoft Ants, Wikipedia is not a forum to promote a website. The voobly.com website was blacklisted due to excessive spamming, caused by multiple IPs repeatedly trying to abuse Wikipedia to promote the website. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it still should be stated that ants is not offline and can still be played, even if you don't list the website where to find it. Not doing so is giving the false impression that Ants is dead. And that is just not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voobly is a reliable source, as I have been there and have played ants. But I can't use it because it is blacklisted. If it wasn't I would have put the source. It's not that I was advertising the website, but anyone who comes to this wiki page wants to know if ants is still around. The answer is yes. But this page makes it seem as though it isn't. This will give people the wrong impression. So this information needs to be updated and let people know that they can still play it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- If the website I mentioned were allowed, you could see that Ants is playable there!!! It shouldn't need to be "sourced" if the actual source of where it is shows that it is still playabale.
That would be like posting that you can play MSN checkers from the MSN gaming zone, but unable to post that, unless you find an article were someone else that says the same thing instead of just showing where you can play it.. It makes no sense.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care if voobly is blacklisted or not. Can't you see though that Microsoft Ants is not retired or dead. Can't you edit it for me in an appropriate way to let people know that it isn't dead, since I am new to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The wiki is 4 years out of date. It says that Ants was played on the MSN gaming zone and told where it was played at, so what's wrong with telling where it is at now? It is just a fact, not an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listing an official site or a site the official site mentions is approved by the company, is totally different than spamming places where to play it. And they are CONSTANTLY trying to spam links to voobly on different game articles, and have been for quite some time now. I have on several occasions reverted an anonymous IP address from spamming Voobly links on the Microsoft Ants article, and have seen others do it as well. They keep on trying. Expect it to return as soon as they don't think anyone is watching. Another IP address posted the Voobly spam on Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear and I reverted it tonight. DreamFocus08:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to notability of Blackout / Michael Biggins - that has already been established argued, and blackout / michael biggins articles were merged years ago.
As to credibility of first person to host a streaming prank call site, that has also been established, at least firmer than any other site can possibly prove.
Wayback machine shows the site up with a realaudio 1.0 prank in 1995... is that not source enough? Can you show me ONE of these other sites with proof of a prank call "STREAMING" on the internet prior to Blackout.com? No. None exist. Not claiming the guy invented prank calls but it was the first streaming prank call site on the internet, and that is notable and useful information to the evolution of prank calls, and this has been established from multiple sources and can be seen in references and articles on Michael Biggins page. Not trying to battle you but this keeps getting vandalized and there are TONS of uncredible listings and useless info in this article that should be removed, why don't you work on that instead of removing credible noteworthy contributions to the evolution of prank calling?
74.72.154.158 (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had an edit conflict on my reply. Rather than post it here, I'll re-type my reply later today (I need to step out for a few hours right now) on the article talk page at talk:Prank call, so as to not fragment the discussion. --- Barek (talk) - 18:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I will look at your reply there later, but please don;'t just 'revert' edits with established notability. I tried to include all sourced and proven material in a non promotional tone. I also tried to clean up and move things into better organization as this article has always been a mess of prank callers fighting for there names to be included. I did not remove anyone even though there are several things there that have NO established notability that should be removed. You may be correct on the formatting, and if so, please feel free to fix that, but Biggins / Blackout is established and should be included. It was included many ties and vandalized by KDK - pranknet, and several other prankster sites that have no notibility whatsoever other than there own words. Blackout and his site are noted in 3 printed outside sources (New Times, Harley Hahns Internet Yellow Pages, and .NET magazine (1998 issue 13) as well as many online sources.
74.72.154.158 (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried editing this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporiser. As a new contributor I'm not very familiar with the process, however I gather that my edits have been deleted by you. As my contribution is technically correct and ethically acceptable I would like to know why it has been deleted and how should I go about putting in contributions.
Please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Your edit was clearly meant as an advertisement for your company. Such content is not appropriate in a Wikipedia articles and should not be restored. --- Barek (talk) - 23:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt feedback. I understand the importance of keeping wikipedia free of commercial clutter. It is a fact that we enjoy every time we use it.
However the modifications I proposed are technically correct and are of value to people who are interested in the subjet. Yes, I am responsable of commercial promotion of a vaporiser and this places me in a position to be distrussed.
Thus said, I beleive, these proposed modifications more appropriate.
In radiation heating, the substance is subjected to radiant energy. The substance absorbs the energy radiated into it and its temperature rises. This energy can be provided by a superheated thermal mass placed around it, or from visible light source like the sun. Radiation vaporizers are rare, but capable of duplicating the performance of convection vaporizers. A pipe and a magnifying glass on a bright, sunny day can, with care and practice, act as an adequate radiation vaporizer using light.
Our product is the only vaporiser on the market using radiation heating of a thermal mass. From this perspective, would it be appropriate to have an illustration of the patent or of the apparatus?
The primary issue with your initial edit was the promotional wording. As long as that's not included, it would resolve the reason that I reverted it. For images, if you add one, be certain that it meets our image use policy. Some of the issues to watch for on images: the image must be licensed in a way that's compatible with Wikipedia (many images get deleted due to copyright issues); do not include a watermark or added copyright/logo/marketing information on the image itself; the image should demonstrate the use of the subject, and not be overly emphasized on any logo or branding on the device. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, I am not edit warring, nor am I referring to an old consensus. The recent consensus changed the introduction, and Peregrine981 and I are working on a discussion regarding the subject. However, the original wording by the new consensus listed 1981 as the "usual" end date without definite time frames. This is backed up by sources. Educatedlady decided on her own to change the phrase to read 1982. Most sources do not cite 1982 as the end date for Generation X. Very few do. I will request a revert to the edit as it does not violate the recent consensus. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a content dispute, and I don't currently see where a consensus is reached on the article talk page. If one was reached, feel free to point it out. But from what I can see, none has been reached as yet. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we're placing bets, I wager it's a first year undergraduate at Bath facing two essays with final deadline early this week, who can't decide what to do and stirs up drama instead. In my day we used to call it displacement activity. If I'm right, quick blocks actually do the vandal a favour as well as protecting the 'pedia. Pointillist (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Post removed
I would like to contribute to this article and would like to know what I need to do to get my contribution approved. I am new to Wikipedia, though am a published author and respected authority on the subject of Lease Options in the UK.
I can confirm that the content posted was not an infringement on copyright.
I note the comment about removing the link which leads to a web site, the content of which is my personal property and which contains useful information about lease options, however, if this is not allowed, I apologise for the error.
Many thanks for your consideration in this matter.
Howdy, could you help clear his name. He's had a 'suspected of being a sock' Template on his talkpage, since November 10th. Yet, his suspector hasn't 'yet' filed a SPI. GoodDay (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering if the one month block was really necessary on my IP account? Sandstein didn't even give me a chance to reply, which makes me think that he was trying to get me out of the way from this thing and how I said that I had a vested interest in getting my account unblocked. Is that really how blockings are supposed to work? Spartan123455 (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, if an account is blocked, any questions with the block should be resolved via that account. Going around the block to debate the block is viewed as abusing multiple accounts, and results in automatic blocks of the IP. But, in this case, I think a month was likely overkill. I hadn't paid attention to the duration that was set - I'll go ahead and reduce that now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does one get Eastside Sun newspaper deletion undone?
Hi. A bunch of self-appointed censors winnowed, then deleted, the article on a newspaper in Washington State called The Eastside Sun. How do we determine the identities of the people behind the screen names? This was a clearly orchestrated effort and it needs to be exposed in print. We've spoken with Rolling Stone and they want us to get the lowdown.
What you are describing can be viewed as stalking and harrassment, which is simply not tollerated. It appears that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastside Sun has clear community consensus; attempting to use Wikipedia to soapbox against a result with which you disagree is likewise not tollerated. My suggestion is that you simply walk away from the issue and find more productive activities to work on in your available time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi -- I'm new to Wikipedia. Having said that, I'm puzzled by the inconsistency in interpretation and enforcement of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. For example, I've posted an entry about an individual who's having a substantial impact on literary criticism/education at the middle and secondary school level, with major national press citations of a decidedly non-trivial nature, yet you've flagged it for failing to meet Wikipedia's notability standard. In the meantime, I've come across a substantial number of Wikipedia entries for individuals whose impact is not nearly so significant, with supporting source material not nearly so substantial ... yet unburdened by citations suggesting the failure of said notability standard. Writing as one who comes from a fairly deep, albeit "traditional," editorial background, I must say that Wikipedia's "notability" standard, while sound in formulation, appears to be quite capricious in application.
Please -- if you think something falls short of "notability," feel free to say how it falls short, feel free to offer suggested corrections/additions/modifications. That's the spirit of Wiki! But don't fall for the short cut. When you attack an article -- and, as did one "editor" this evening, its subject -- with a generic stamp of illegitimacy, you stifle speech, impede ideation, promote mediocrity. The internet's anonymity makes it easier than ever to raise unsubstantiated doubts about others -- and their work. I'm hoping your apparent devotion to Wikipedia means you hold yourself to a much higher standard. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk • contribs) 04:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so please don't lecture about the "spirit of Wiki" when you admit to being new and not familiar with the site policies and guidelines.
That said, a {{notability}} tag is not a call for deletion, it's a cleanup flag for article improvement. Had I thought it warranted deletion, I would have tagged it differently. The main issue with the article is that the subject does not appear to have any notability outside of 60second Recap, which already has its own article (which you yourself created). I have also added a {{merge to}} tag, because if the issues cannot be resolved, it should simply merge into the primary article leaving a redirect to that content.
As to other articles, remember that Wikipedia is a large project - the fact that other articles also need cleanup does not excuse this article from the need to meet content policies and guidelines.
I applaud your efforts; but rather than edit fighting over legitimate cleanup tags - you would be better served in discussing issues on the article talk page and addressing those issues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi -- I may be new to Wikipedia, but I am not new to Wiki. Nor am I new to the English language, nor to the culture in which Wikipedia exists. Neither, I suspect, are you.
That's why I'm sorry you've chosen to respond to my comment with an attempt to delegitimize, first, via the "soapbox" characterization, then with sarcasm (echoing my use of the word "please"). This underscores my aside from said "soapbox" -- about the insidiousness of the internet's anonymity, which allows otherwise-thoughtful people to employ rhetorical feints they'd otherwise avoid. Putting that aside, however, here's my point:
The game show "Let's Make a Deal" may be the biggest thing Bob Barker has ever done, but the two are not synonymous, and an article about one is not a substitute for an article about the other. Moreover, my attempt to fill a gap in Wikipedia's content base was intended to be initiative, rather than comprehensive. So there is no prima facie reason not to permit the article(s) in question to take shape over time. Based on what I've seen thus far, however, I conclude that further discussion about the "notability" of the subject will devolve into an unresolvable tug-of-war, one likely to become personal in nature and, frankly, unfair to the subject herself -- who, to the best of my knowledge, is entirely unaware of all of this.
So I ask that you either permit the article to stand, untagged, or simply delete it altogether. At this point, I really don't care what you decide to do: All I ask is that you make a choice. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk • contribs) 10:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No sarcasm was intended, I am sorry you choose to interpret it as such. As to any claimed attempt to "delegitimize" your comments - you chose to soapbox based on your preconceived notions - if you don't want to be called out for it, don't do it. If someone chose to lecture me on something based upon their preconceived notions in real-life, I would give them a comparable response. While you may not be new to wiki software in general, you should be aware that each wiki has its own sets of policies and guidelines covering everything from content, cleanup, author interaction, dispute resolutions, etc. I too had considerable experience with other wikis prior to arriving at Wikipedia - and I too had to learn the differences and quirks of this wiki compared to the prior ones to which I contributed.
The legitimate cleanup tag was not some "stamp of illegitimacy" against the article, as you claimed. Cleanup tags are notes to the community that additional cleanup is needed to meet Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, as well as pointing to talk page discussions on the topic tags. Again, had I thought the issue called for deletion outright, I would have tagged it with a different tag, such as {{Db-person}} - I did NOT do that because I freely admit the subject did not meet that threshold for deletion.
As to the Bob Barker article; while "Let's Make a Deal" may be the biggest thing for which he's notable - he is in fact notable for several other things. There are multiple reliable sources covering him outside of the game show. As to an article still needing to take shape, cleanup tags help draw attention for others to contribute to improve it.
I see you chose to blank the article rather than permit the community to discuss it. The community discussion may have been to either merge or to retain independent articles - but rather than permit that discussion to take place, you chose to blank out the article entirely. I see you also chose to blank out the 60second Recap article which had no questions on the independent notability of that article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Reagan once said to Carter, “There you go again.” Really, I don't care whether you choose to accuse me of “soapboxing” … or of crimes against humanity. What is lost on me is the relevancy of such characterizations with the subject at hand. (But, whatever … ) More arresting is your take of the Wikipedia editorial “process,” which ignores the circumstances, as I experienced them, in my first (and last) attempt at authoring a Wikipedia article.
Specifically, you write, “The community discussion may have been to either merge or to retain independent articles - but rather than permit that discussion to take place, you chose to blank out the article entirely.”
In fact, here's what happened: An “editor” or “moderator” simply deleted the article I submitted about the individual in question, and redirected the link to the 60second Recap article. No notice, no deliberation. How on earth does such an act encourage a “community discussion”?
You go on to say, “I see you also chose to blank out the 60second Recap article which had no questions on the independent notability of that article.” Technically this is true, but it ignores the fact that the 60second Recap article had been emblazoned with a notability tag about the individual who was the subject of the related article.
Bottom line: I deleted both articles because I take this kind of work seriously, but don't have time for this kind of silliness. And insofar as your take on the subject itself is concerned … well, I just don't have a dog in this fight. So why fight?
Wikipedia's a treasure, and I'll be happy to tweak grammatical/logic/factual errors on the site as I find them; that kind of messing-about amounts to a mental vacation, at least for me. Like playing Sudoku. But when it comes to taking the time to contribute actual content, I'll leave all that to your team of precocious middle schoolers. Thanks. Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comments on your soapboxing were a direct reply to your comments on the subject. If you don't want a person to reply on a subject, don't bring up the subject yourself.
You conveniently only pointed out part of the string of events when you state "in fact". An editor converted the article to a redirect, and you restored the article. Fair enough, both are permitted to do this; see WP:BOLD. The editor did not edit war with your reversion. The article was then labelled by a third editor (myself) with a clean-up tag, pointing out the article needed improvements on its notability - this too you reverted. When it was restored along with a {{merge to}} tag along and a discussion started on the article talk page - rather than allowing a discussion to take place, you blanked out the article, ultimately resulting in it being deleted under {{Db-blanked}}.
As to the 60second Recap article, the only cleanup tag on it was {{merge from}} which simply stated "It has been suggested that Jenny Sawyer be merged into this page or section." - and that was the full string of text - along with a discussion started on that article's talk page which never progressed as your blanking also resulted in that article being deleted under {{Db-blanked}}. These were not "fights" as you characterize them, but starts of discussions within the Wikipedia community of contributors - a discussion which you chose to prematurely bring to an end.
Lastly, you may also want to read WP:OWN, which is summarized at the top of that page with the text: "If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so." as well as taking a glance at WP:NPA, as your comment regarding some imagined "precocious middle schoolers" could be viewed as veiled insults directed at those with whom you do not agree. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the WP:NPA citation, as I think civility is important in all walks of life.
I have a question I hope you, as a moderator, can answer. It will help me understand the application of WP:NPA in the Wikipedia community.
In your last post, you write: "My comments on your soapboxing were a direct reply to your comments on the subject." As you were the one who accused me of being on a soapbox in the first place (cf., your very initial response to my first query), I take it you mean that your accusation was an appropriate response to my query.
Fair enough. I found your characterization offensive and felt it injected an ad hominem element to the discussion. But you're the moderator.
Anyway, my question ...
Your "soapbox" accusation was aimed at an individual -- me. My comment about "precocious middle schoolers" was aimed at no one individual, but at an entire class of individuals. My reading of WP:NPA is that it prohibits personal attacks, although it remains silent on the issue of pissy asides that are not aimed at any specific individual. One could certainly, and reasonably, contend that such characterizations nevertheless violate the the spirit of WP:NFA. But this still begs the question:
How is it that your "soapbox" accusation aimed at a specific individual does not violate WP:NPA, while my "precocious middle schoolers" comment aimed at no one individual does violate WP:NPA?
To start, I stated that your post "could be viewed as veiled insults directed at those with whom you do not agree" - I did not state your post was a violation of WP:NPA, although I should have worded it more clearly that it was intended as a warning to be careful, as you were treading dangerously close. It's easy in one's mind to discount the comments of others on a site when you characterize the user community of that site as immature and childish individuals - which is the how I had interpreted your comment. I apologize if that is incorrect and not your intended meaning.
On the "Soapboxing" comment - it was clearly not an attack on you as a person, I commented on your initial post on my talk page (specifically, the second paragraph) which I identified as soapboxing; although, perhaps simply calling it preaching or lecturing may have been more accurate? Regardless, it was not an attack on you as a person, but a comment on the content of your post to my talk page. I believe it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate how it could be seen otherwise given the initial post to which it was a direct reply. If you disagree, feel free to bring it up for discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts or WP:ANI.
Thank you for restoring the 60second Recap article. I had planned to use the sources you had previously provided in order to re-write the content myself, as I believe that the site appears to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As the content has now been restored, I also restored the original edit history of the page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, another editor has since tagged the 60second Recap article with a speedy deletion tag using {{db-a7}}. I removed the tag as I disagree; however, they are still free to bring the article to WP:AFD which would result in a week-long discussion where the full community is able to discuss the merits of the article as encyclopedic content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sigh ... and again with the {{Db-blanked}} tag ... although I suppose I can understand your frustration at this point on it. I will look through the sources later, and if/when time permits, work on creating a new article myself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I saw the edit summary in this edit; please be aware that while you may be the original contributor, it's no longer your work once added here. Note the text directly below the "save" button on the edit screens that states "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." See WP:OWN for more details. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're 100% right, of course. I just wanted to shut it down in the most unambiguous manner, asserting a kind of moral, rather than legal, right (if, indeed, such a right exists). In any event, it is challenging to be caught in a situation where an anonymous individual, one who appears to have credentials as some senior Wikipedia moderator, starts calling you, in essence, a liar ... and in the most aggressive and obnoxious manner. It's even more challenging when you ask this person just what it is you're doing wrong, and he merely responds with series of Wikipedia policy citations that, insofar as you can tell, have no bearing on anything you've done. Anyway, thanks for all you're doing (seriously). Alas, I've found my brief Wikipedia experience to be so extraordinarily unpleasant that I don't think I can ever look at this website again, much less contribute to it in any way. Once again, that cloak of anonymity seems to empower to people to act so unfortunately. Oh, well. Over and out. Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barek -- The response I posted on my page to your comment:
Yes, you are 100% correct, and as I commented on your talk page, I was seeking to assert moral, rather than legal, authority (if such a thing even exists.) It is unpleasant to be accused, repeatedly, by a senior Wikipedia moderator, of being a spammer -- and then, in essence, of being a liar -- without any apparent cause or explanation. Under such circumstances, there is nothing to do but to leave. And take my words with me. After all, if these are, indeed, the words of a "spammer," why should Wikipedia want them? Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to see you leave; but I can understand where you are coming from on it at this point.
I also understand the point of view of the other editor, given the recent addition of external links. But, I do wish they would have been a bit clearer on the specific reasons and pointers in how to fix the issues. I frequently use the same generic warning message templates; but if the user asks, I generally respond with additional clarifications. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum
Just a few moments ago, I logged on to find that I'd been banned permanently as a slammer. (I stepped outside the hotel where I'm staying to punch this out on my iPhone). Ironic, under the circumstances, don't you think? In any event, I've never encountered anything like this, anywhere on the internet. This is, hands down, the most vituperative online community I've ever seen (although, again, you seem quite reasonable). If my experience is anything close to the norm, well ... it can't possibly be -- can it? (toomanywordstoolittletime) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.217 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the block, as I believe you were contributing in good faith - although making a few errors under Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Also, I will leave a warning on your IP page re: bypassing blocks - which is itself a blockable offense. As you were unaware, I'll simply apply the warning to the IP talk page as a formality. Blocked users are still able to edit their own talk page to communicate with the community, sorry I didn't notice the block myself earlier. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For making the effort to interact with a difficult editor with patience and assumptions of good faith. They may not have appreciated your efforts, but they were exemplary nonetheless. -- Lear'sFool14:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason, the infobox has a lot more information in it than it displays in the article. There is a technical problem. If you could help it would be appreciated. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
All of the groups, etc. from FCI, AKC, etc. This apparently is true of almost any dog breed. Click on the links on Mountain dog There are a whole lot of spaces in these infobxes, and they are filled in, andn don't display that I can see. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Which field specifically? They all appear to be showing for me - although they are collapsed by default on these infoboxes to save space. One the dog articles, are you clicking "show" next to the text "Classification and standards"? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages
You reverted my edits in Amazon for Please "making test edits" when I wasn't. I was just seeing if an issue is popular enough to be included in the main page. remember, this was on the TALK PAGE so no vandalism was intended. please assume my good faith next time! 220.101.4.140 (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the section is "Boycott PayPal", and you added the text "Im boycotting it because of what they did"[17], same as your addition to the Amazon.com page[18]. Meanwhile, no reliable sources were provided, only your own original research and soapboxing on the issue.
I see that you deleted The Eastside Sun from Wikipedia. While your reasons are unimportant to me, I would like to read the article you found so offensive. Where can I find it in archives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.101.77 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete it, a different admin performed that task. It was not deleted for being "offensive", it was deleted for failing to meet Wikipedia general notability guidelines of WP:N and WP:GNG - if it can later be established that the subject can meet those guidelines, it would be appropriate to create an article at that point.
I realize you claimed that the reasons were irrelevant, but I chose to provide the reasons that were documented in thecommunity discussion because you chose to misrepresent the reasons in your subsequent statement.
As to a viewing in "archive", it was deleted from general viewing, only admins can access it at this point. Although, as I'm not on a secure network at the moment, I'm not logged into my admin profile, so I also cannot view it at this time. --- Barek (talk) - 01:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And please overlook the two rollbacks I just made. For some reason I thought the vandalism had been reinstated, so I rolled it back, only to find that I had rolled back your reversion, so I rolled my own edit back as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John Amos
Thanks for taking the trouble to fix the edit history of Talk:John Amos. I did not fix it at the time because I felt sure that the anon would go back and vandalize it again, and I did not want to get into an edit war over it. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
United Canine Association. Someone just added a link to this club/business to Leonberger and some other dog articles. I've never heard of this, and I have some experience as a dog-fancier wannabe over the last 20 years. It looks like the only attached club is the "Star of Texas" club. The breed standards are more bullshit than I've read in one place in a long time. As far as I can tell, this is a non-notable organization, which 'recognizes' and provides registration -- (rump registration, since Leonberger Club of American, for example, and I suppose the American Kennel Club and the FCI provide real registration for Leonbergers -- for every (400!) dog breed you've ever (or never) heard of. This just seems to me to be a relatively new commercial enterprise, and I would guess we are about to get links in 400 dog articles. I don't particularly care for the AKC, as I think all they care about are registry fees, too. But this thing has real spammy potential, and I am concerned. I'm not saying we should do anything about this, but maybe someone should think about it. You are one of the spam people, and I thought I'd call this to your attention. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I won't judge the site itself at this time, but the way it was being applied into articles was a problem (generic link into breed-specific articles on a dozen or more articles by at least four SPA IPs). I've reversed the links and warned the IPs involved, and will report the link at WT:WPSPAM for future reference, in case abuse of the external links section for promotional purposes continues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fiberglass
Hi there,
Politely and respectfully, why on earth are sending me a message related to fiberglass? I suspect you have the wrong person.
The warning was dated in January, 2010. You are likely using a dynamic IP address, so that when you connect to the internet, your IP changes periodically. As a result, the warning given in January was to the person using your IP back in January.
Everything required to make the article genuine has been added including the Wikipedia reliable links and external references. Just keep opposing without proper reasons, this way there won't be much more genuine articles written in Wikipedia as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.122.126 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 12 December 2010
You are blanking a notice regarding an AfD discussion, do not do that. AfD discussions are where the Wikipedia community will discuss the appropriateness of the article based upon Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Removing the link to the discussion is considered vandalism, and can result in blocks if you persist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Picture removal
Hello Barek.
Following prior correspondance I had added a picture of a radiation vaporizer on this page.
It is now gone. I couldn't find the reason for this in the modification page. How should I go about finding out why the modification has been rejected?
It looks like a few images were removed by Aaron Brenneman (talk·contribs) on the grounds that there were already enough images to illustrate the subject, and was removing what was becoming a gallery. You might want to bring it up on the talk page of the article at talk:Vaporizer (cannabis) to see if others support adding it back into the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Atargatis
Just curious as to what criteria you defined the pop culture edits I made as spam. I've seen the reference and links on tons of other pages, and this was a link to a legit appearance in a comic that folks who read about Atargatis might be interested in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.85.151.70 (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barek, thanks for your message, but I'm not testing nor sandboxing. I'm legitimately adding a record to a white-label video service provider. Thank you for your patience; not everyone updates pages at lightening speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.225.7 (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a personel problem with this editor. Can you please help me? He seems to edite peoples contributions because it doesnt suit him. I find him abnoxiuos and far too big for his his own botts. Please look at what he changes and tell me if he deserves to be a wiki editor? 89.240.177.14 (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you kindly take a look at this. I know nothing about the subject, but merely happened on it and to the redirect, and I think there is a better way to do it. Merry Christmas to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I am not talking about the list article (which the redirect leads to), but to the page where the redirect exists. I am not trying to confuse you, but clicking on some of the links takes you unintended places) and so I apologize for any confusion. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Actually, I agree with using a redirect, but I think the wrong target is currently used. Redirecting to Dragon Ball would be a better choice. Note:I don't think it should redirect to the section in it of Dragon Ball#Dragon Ball Z, mainly because that only discusses the anime series, not the other formats of the franchise - same issue as the current target. --- Barek (talk) - 18:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, looking at the history ... there's a long past on that page. I'll need to dig deeper to track down the prior discussions. --- Barek (talk) - 18:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!
Spread the WikiLove by adding {{subst:User:The Utahraptor/Christmas tree}} to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.
It didn't need to be revdeled, as it's nowhere near accurate, but I appreciate the assistance. :-) Wonder if that was related to the Kirkland issues...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem ... I didn't know if it was accurate, so figured the safer route was to revdel the attempted outing. I was wondering the same thing; the advertising page on their website claims new issues come out the 24th of each month (old one is still showing online), so the timing could be right for it to be related. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Network Marketing
Do you have a particular hate on for Network Marketing? It appears that you will consistently disallow any attempt at balanced presentation on this forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vejeestu (talk • contribs) 04:55, 30 December 2010
I received one or more notes from you about attempts that I made at editing Wiki's Big Bang Theory main page. Any editing that I attempted was in no way meant to be antagonistic; in fact edits attempted by me were done so in the spirit of accuracy and good faith.
Approximately several days ago, I entered the following statement on the page:
"Several of the actors in The Big Bang Theory worked together previously on Roseanne, an American sitcom broadcast on ABC from October 18, 1988 to May 21, 1997. These former Roseanne cast-mates are Johnny Galecki (Leonard Hofstadter), Sara Gilbert (Leslie Winkle) and Laurie Metcalf (guest star role as Sheldon Cooper's mother, Mary)."
Revisiting the page, I was dismayed at how I wrote what I wrote. You will notice that I placed parentheses around the names of the characters and then around "guest star role as Sheldon Cooper's mother, Mary." That is not Laurie Metcalf's character's name. Therefore it should be:
"Several of the actors in The Big Bang Theory worked together previously on Roseanne, an American sitcom broadcast on ABC from October 18, 1988 to May 21, 1997. These former Roseanne cast-mates are Johnny Galecki (Leonard Hofstadter), Sara Gilbert (Leslie Winkle) and Laurie Metcalf, guest star role as Sheldon Cooper's mother, (Mary)."
I then realized that that was not quite accurate. I didn't want to leave the reader with the assumption that Sheldon's monther's last name was "Cooper". Perhaps she has a different last name for whatever reason. So, I finally revised it to reflect her identity most accurately and to look like this:
"Several of the actors in The Big Bang Theory worked together previously on Roseanne, an American sitcom broadcast on ABC from October 18, 1988 to May 21, 1997. These former Roseanne cast-mates are Johnny Galecki (Leonard Hofstadter), Sara Gilbert (Leslie Winkle) and Laurie Metcalf, guest star role as Sheldon Cooper's mother, (Mary Cooper)."
Furthermore, after watching a BBT episode, today, I learned that the address of the appartment building is 2311 Los Robles. I know that the show takes place in Pasadena. I don't think references to addresses are trivial; so I added text to reflect the above. It looked like this:
"The address (albeit fictitious) of the appartment building in which Sheldon Cooper, Leoonard Hofstader and Penny reside is given on the show as 2311, Los Robles."
I titled it "Miscelaneous".
You did not accept the edits that I made despite how well-intentioned they were. It is regrettable that my attempts at editing the BBT main page were regarded as vandalism. Ultimately, if you don't like the text that I added, well then, whatever. I was merely trying to make a significant and accurate contribution to the world - as significant as a modification of text on an internet encyclopedia can be. I won't lose sleep over it.
I have no issues with the corrections to the character names; however, the the non-notable and trivial mention of a fictitious address is not encyclopedic. If you disagree, the correct place to discuss it is the article talk page at talk:The Big Bang Theory, not on my user talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
