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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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_2011.
I don't know how to use discussion page. I don't understand why do you have a discussion on my discussion page with the (non-existing) "user" jgombos (it's my old user name). I haven't made those online post adverts (links) or whatever they were. As an admin perhaps you could tell me was my page hacked and can someone remove the discussion? Jarmo Gombos (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The posts on your user talk page were with jgombos (talk·contribs), this can be confirmed by viewing the page history. The user account for jgombos (both user page and user talk page) redirect to your userpage and user talk page. This would be reasonable, as you acknowledge that user:jgombos is your old user account.
I will block jgombos, as the history demonstrates that the account was moved, and your post here demonstrates the new account is the intended current account to be used, and the old account should have been blocked anyways. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you recently closed this discussion because Thryduulf (talk·contribs) told you that it was located in the wrong place. I don't see why this is the case...?! RfD is exactly the place that you should be discussing this (from the top of the page "Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic redirects." - that's exactly what this is). I might be missing something? If I'm not feel free to reopen the discussion (or start a new one) there. Mhiji23:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't been aware of the discussion. But, in a bit of a catch-22 situation, because I had removed the COI tag myself before being aware of the discussion, your post to me that makes me aware of the discussion could potentially also be viewed as canvassing. I'll look a bit more at the article, but may not comment to the COIN discussion because of the possible misperception. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revert
Why undo my edit? [[1]] As a fabrication, it's unlikely to come up again, and the edit history will always be there just in case. Can you at least close the discussion or some such, instead of just reverting me? --Elvey (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's always possible to do a non-admin closure - I wouldn't have reversed that. Feel free to use the collapse top/bottom to close the discussion. However, I feel it's an issue that's quite possible (if not highly likely) to come up again, so leaving it on the talk page helps to demonstrate that it has been discussed already before it's brought up again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gfoley4 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Thanks for fixing my edit. I didn't mean to blank that section. I was reverting another editors' edits to sourced information. I was adding back the information you put in, but I stupidly had two editing windows open, and I apparently confirmed the wrong changes. Sorry about that. It wasn't a malicious action on my part. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it was an earlier IP that had blanked out that content, not you. It looks like there were quite a few intermediate edits, so I can see why it would be tricky to cleanup. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
Sophus Bie has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}
Barek, Created this redirect page because of a difference between the name of the statue and the park where it occurs, which is Lumberman's Monument. It should really be an automatic, and I don't know how to do that. Please take a look. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Barek, I crossed over into the other work, but managed to screw up the references. Apparently their format is different than ours. Can't seem to cure the problem. I've been bumbling around for a while, and frankly don't intend to edit there much, if at all. Help please. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Stan[reply]
It looks like someone else already did some cleanup, although I removed a stray template. While it's a related website - it has its own user community that developed in parallel to the one here - so their templates won't always share the same structure or in some cases have different uses than a similarly named template from here. Unfortunately, that means in many cases needing to learn different formatting to do the same tasks. --- Barek (talk) - 18:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody was also kind enough (there) to send me a welcome. That will help if I venture back.
They say 'You can't know the players without a scorecard.' And you probably can't effectively edit without knowing the rules. Thanks for putting your thumb in the whole I made in their dike. (How's that for mixing metaphors. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Original Research
Very sorry for posting my own research on TimeCube; I was wandering though, if I were to link my own research through a external reference, and announce that on the TimeCube page, would it be against the rules or would it surpass? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Near.lucemferre (talk • contribs) 20:10, 3 February 2011
If it's an external site that you control, then it would be best to post the link and your proposed comments to the article talk page at Talk:Time Cube in order to avoid any risks of a perceived conflict of interest; otherwise, you risk the link being viewed as self-promotional.
I stubbed an infobox for the article. I also stumbled across some info on the Real McCoy II that replaced the original one; but just a few small notes on it so far, not sure if you have any data on that one. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Wi-Fi article revert
Thanks for reverting an edit to Wi-Fi I spent an hour working on, trying to clean up the mess of the "health" section. I was straightforward, cited, and linked to other wikipedia articles - replacing paragraphs of rambling, unsupported nonsense. I don't suppose you realized looking at the edit history, that a few users have been pushing an unscientific pro-"EHS" agenda with that article? That most of their references are to private websites and news stories that have no scientific evidence? That the section even repeatedly makes claims that are not mentioned in the references cited?
How funny that you instruct another wikipedia editor: "Also, be certain to keep the Wikipedia entry as concise and neutrally worded as possible. --- Barek (talk) - 20:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.10.16 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 7 February 2011
You were blanking several paragraphs of cited material with no explaination whatsoever. When making major revisions, it's highly encouraged to comment to the article talk page, or to at least make some sort of comment in the edit summary to explain the reason for large-scale removal of content. --- Barek (talk) - 16:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a SPA account; might just be someone from the community making good-faith edits to promote their city, but going against WP:EL, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and WP:USCITY in the process. I did leave the list of newspapers, but converted them to internal wikilinks instead of external links.
I realized after adding my level three warning that your second one had been tagged as a final warning due to their persistence. If it continues, I'll block to get them to recognize that they need to discuss the edits. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Add into this that the material is not appropriate on Wikipedia in the first place due to WP:BIO, WP:PROMOTION, WP:RS, and possibly WP:COI - it all combines to make clear that the material does not belong in Wikipedia, and that your behavior is inappropriate and represents disruptive editing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recreated Merry Miller's page with CORRECT bio and links verifying it. Please
let me know what more you need. My resume more than qualifies and I included all
the links and media to prove it. Please let me know why it was pulled down as it's
been up for three years with no problem (well, until an employee I fired requested it
be pulled down two weeks ago). I helped build the Learning Annex and actually booked
Jimmy Wales to speak there a few years ago. Thanks for your help and please let me
know as I'm at a loss!
What was revdeleted from my userpsace today? This person seems to have targeted people and topics relating to the Israel-Palestine topic area. Just a curiosity thing, I certainly am not opposed to the action. :) if it's really not suitable for public view, e-mail is always fine. Tarc (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Highly appreciate the responsive action against those Tom Truong additions. Spam (especially from a self-admitted "PR Firm") should never be tolerated on Wikipedia. Cheers. -- φ OnePt618Talk φ 06:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey i just saw your message, i understand your point and what you mean but what i wrote about and added where media appearances that where held about the company Love Systems. could you explain to me what i did wrong so i don't do it again.
thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramosa138 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If an edit is reverted, the best approach is to discuss it on the article talk page (Talk:Love Systems) in order to establish if consensus supports the changes.
Looking closer at the articles, you are correct in most of the cases; although the entries/refs related to "Keys to the VIP" and "The Don" still appear to be secondary topics. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i talked to talked systems
hey so i talked with talk systems and they said all the information i had written was okay andit was even better to have in the page. so can i put it up again?
thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramosa138 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a company says is okay in an article is irrelevant - they don't control the page. In fact, if you only acted on behalf of a company's PR department, it would likely result in a pretty quick account block. What matters are Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as well as community consensus. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look I am not a vandal okay, I am the person who wrote that bit about it being Lost in Space in the first place, I am going to do a review of Lost in Space and would like to use that bit about them being similar, its something noone has pointed out before bar me. I don't want it to look like I just ripped this off of this talk page can you please just let me delete that bit the arguement is closed its not important anymore. Why would I want to vandalise a talk page on Red Dwarf for goodness sake please I am begging you I would really like to use that pleeeeeeaaaaaaasssssse I wish I had never fucking written that bit in the first place please get back to me.
Can you please get back to me I really want to get this deleted and cleared up as soon as possible, never contributing to wikipedia again after this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.13.198 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The entry is a legitimate discussion about article content which has had replies from other parties. Had it been deleted before anyone else replied, no problem - but at this point, it's a multi-person conversation regarding the content that can act to prevent needing to re-discuss the issue again.
I am now a registerd user and I only went to the other talk page because after I asked here I got a reply from someone else that said I should go to Ckatz for Red Dwarf. No one else has noticed the similarities between the two shows yet so not only is no one likely to put that in anytime soon but if they do then fine the section can come back up again but until then I don't see why it can't go. Isn't there some little loophole I can use to get it taken down, I read that fan discussions aren't allowed on talk pages, plus even if it is in history thats not the same as it being right there on the actual talk page, not that many people are going to check the history of a talk page but someone might check the talk page itself in which case they will see it right away I would like to get rid of it. Original research is not allowed so the arguement isn't even releveant. Why are you allowed to delete discussions on wikis but not on wikipedia. PS I am new so I am unsure how to sign my posts get back to me at my IP adress sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaquejohnson (talk • contribs) 15:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, unless added text is disruptive, or is not about article content, then it can be removed. But in this case, it is clearly a discussion about the article content, and has replies from other editors.
I googled for "red dwarf" "lost in space" and found a handful of mentions on the first page or two which were links to some forums, blogs, and self-published reviews. The problem is that to add the mention to the article would require a source that qualifies under Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source - and none of the existing sources that I can find would qualify as that. So, it isn't a new idea, and is one quite possible to be brought up again.
To keep talk pages from growing too long, it's common practice to archive older threads. The content will eventually archive automatically after the last post to the thread (after 90 days) - and at that point will no longer be on the primary talk page, but instead be on one of the archived sub-pages (likely either Talk:Red Dwarf/Archive 3 or Talk:Red Dwarf/Archive 4). One option would be to manually accelerate that archival, I can assist with that if you would prefer to have that done. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing to merge these talk pages to Wikipedia:Blocked external links and subpages. The main reason is to remove the implication of "spam" and provide a somewhat more visible and centralized location, and a slightly more sane process. I am contacting you because you are or have been involved with spam blacklisting in the past. Please post any comments you may have at Wikipedia talk:Blocked external links. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thunderbolt
Thanks for your recent edits to Thunderbolt. My edits were based on the fact that is a new technology that has a lot of interest, the old page made the Intel technology hard to find. Your latest edit both streamlines and satisfies my original intention for the edit. TimL (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry why did you see fit to undo my revert? He has given no argument for removing the link and we can only assume he is doing it because this site is the main source of his opposition in his attempt for deletion. It seems like a pretty obvious WP:COI, he possesses no expertise in regard to the subject and produced no real reason or justification for removing the link. The link has been in the article for a very long time, I was simply restoring an edit by a person who has newly came into editing this article.
If he is allowed to remove whatever link he pleases with no justification or explanation please inform me, however sneaking the link removal in with a justified link removal hints at guilt. If I could know whoever to report this apparent circumvention of policy to that would be much appreciated as well.
Worm4Real (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However he removed the link for absolutely no reason and I reverted it, then my change was reverted, tell me how to interpret that other than "unjustified edit by an admin stands :P". Further listing policy links is nice, but how about giving reasons and how they relate to policy? Of course, you're not just copying and pasting policy to justify your action without evaluating the specific event. Worm4Real (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't know your history with the other editor, and I don't care about it. The page is on my watchlist; but at the time I don't think it was, I likely spotted the original edit while watching Special:RecentChanges for new edits. The edit added a link which failed WP:ELNO #4, 10, & 11.
It's not a link to a forum or a link to a blog, so I fail to see how 10 or 11 apply. Can you please explain why you think the website in question is a forum or blog? As far as promotion, it's already part of the article and relates to the subject. I could understand promotion if the link was just sitting there alone with no tie in to the article, however it is tied in.
It's got to be a natural part of having things on watchlists that eventually you have to explain your actions to an interested person. Worm4Real (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The top-level link that was added to the article may be appropriate to an article about caltrops.com, but not to this article. External links should be specifically targeted. However, the portion of the site that is relevant to the article and which would represent a targeted link would be the forums. Thus, #10 and 11 do apply.
Link span and link span discussion that you should know about
FYI, This user is inundating articles with this stuff. It is bad info. This is a big deal. A veritable Wolf in sheep's clothing. I don't know what to do, but reverting everything he does is going to be a pain, and gets bigger all the time. citypopulation.de
The user is introducing the link as a reference for area populations. I don't see the link as acceptable as a reliable source...it does not appear to be from an authoritative source but it is second sourcing census.gov. In some cases, he is replacing the .gov source, changing the numbers, and loosely citing the .gov source while introducing the link (example). I have attempted to stop him and discuss this on his talk page but he has not responded but instead continues to introduce these links which I now see as RefSpam. I reverted him a couple of times so he might take notice but he is plodding on without responding. I will notify him of this discussion.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕))00:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Old Man Murray page is back (as it should be). The stated reason for deletion of the talk page was that the page no longer exists. Since it does (and has been annotated with 46 references), the protection on the talk page should be removed. This will enable others to contribute to the discussion and fill out the reference list properly.
As far as I can see, there is no page protection on the talk page. For the prior deleted discussions, that should have been restored when the article page was restored. I cannot do that via my current connection - but will ask another admin to do it. --- Barek (talk) - 23:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - it may be that your account hasn't yet been autoconfirmed - that could potentially be preventing you from creating a new talk page. Regardless - I'll ask another admin to restore the original talk page content, then anyone can edit it at that point. --- Barek (talk) - 23:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted a request to WP:ANI, and it looks like another admin has now restored the page. I see in the page log that there was a "create protect" on the page, I missed that earlier. But, all back to normal again now it appears. --- Barek (talk) - 23:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Soapboxing--that's the word I was looking for last night; for some reason I couldn't come up with it. And "link hijacking", that's very appropriate. Thanks for the administrative and vocabulary assistance! Drmies (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prospect High School (Illinois)
Regarding the prospect high school posting. Jimy Sohns went to prospect h.s. graduated in 1964 Is a founding member of the shadows of knight. I cited wikipedia as my source. Maybe you could correct anything you think is in=accurate and re-post this information. Only error I can see is Gloria only reached number 10 on the billboard charts. I think cashbox ranked it higher. Oh I am not the jimy sohns....Im Bob Adams from Arlington Heights. Jimysohns (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC) bob adams 2/20/2011[reply]
There's no question that Shadows of Knight has been established as notable. But, please review WP:MUSICBIO - it outlines how to establish a person as notable under Wikipedia guidelines (notability is not automatically inherited from a band to a member of that band). Also, once that part can be resolved, a reliable source is also required that would link the person to the high school, see WP:RS for what qualifies as a reliable source. --- Barek (talk) - 21:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Jimy Sohns is a founding member of this group and went to Prospect High School it would appear to me that all I need to provide as a source is the Prospect H.S. yearbook from 1964...The Crest...which lists Mr.Sohns as a student in the graduating class. I am not claiming him as notable in his own right but only as a member of this group which you have admitted are notable (the group). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimysohns (talk • contribs) 00:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the section is labelled "Notable alumni" for a reason; the people listed in the section have been established as meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines - this is the general inclusion criteria used for persons listed in city and school articles. The guideline can be reviewed at WP:MUSICBIO. As I stated before, notability is not automatically inherited. If you can find sources that establish the person meets the notability guideline, that would resolve the issue (and, conveniently, enough material would likely exist at that point for an article about the person to be created). --- Barek (talk) - 17:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand your concern as Jimy Sohns may only be famous as a member of the group The Shadows of Knight. i do find it a bit odd that the "first lady of the Ukraine" seemed to establish herself as notable....lol. Oh well thank you for your guidance. Bob Adams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimysohns (talk • contribs) 02:48, 5 March 2011
CFX Bank History
Hi,
Just went thru the history of CFX Bank.The bank was not formed in 2006.It was formed much earlier and in 2004 (not 2006) it merged with Century Bank.
In addition look at the lastest report which shows CFX has been liquidated mostly due to the ownership dispute with EX-ENG Capital director.So on its History its relevant to include the ownership dispute which is well documented such that it cant be eliminated from CFX History.Please follow link.
Hi Barek, as a courtesy notification, I'm just letting you know that I've just extended AGSman61 (talk·contribs)'s block to an indefinite duration due to continued serious personal attacks while blocked. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I'm open to having any of my blocks modified without needing to check with me first, but thanks for the notification. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore Minetest-c55 so that it can be submitted to AFD, where depending on the state of the article history I will likely vote for a merge and then redirect, maybe with a name change to minetest. Unsure of the redirect target, might be a sandbox game article, or even a subsection on related games in Minecraft. The topic could be notable in that readers will search wikipedia for minetest. -84user (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's really not much to restore. The only source was to what's listed as the official site @ http://celeron.55.lt/~celeron55/minetest/ , and the extent of the content was just two sentences, which were themselves a cut-and-paste from the first and third paragraphs from the official site; plus a see-also list with links to a handful of other articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I posted a new article at my sub-page (/Arkeia Software). Would it be possible for you to please look it over and let me know if it's ready for the main page or if there are any changes you think I should make to it? (I would feel better having an administrator look it over before I officially post it in the main space.) Thank youMichael Leeman (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Corrections to Employment were not testing - they were to correct spelling of the word Labour (which in English - this is the English Wikipedia site) is spelled with a U. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.135.207 (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:ENGVAR, there are multiple regional variations in spelling ... per the site guideline WP:ENGVAR, the in initial english variation used within the article should be retained. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about the additional requirement of General Sanctions logging - thanks for correcting the missing additional step. --- Barek (talk) - 22:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DRV
Hi! Thanks for your comment at DRV. I noticed that the link you included seems to have been a mistaken cut and paste, as it doesn't link to the reason given...--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the mathematician... Professor of History: " All are tertiary sources "
The claim for a Croatian Clovio emerges every now and then from that country's dilettante historians (also mathematicians, analysts, engineers etc.)
This person does not recognize published documents and after attempts to explain on the talk page, apparently suffers from a reading problem. Can you help?
-- In 35 years of teaching. Absurd and humiliating. --
I decided to remain silent ... but I am continually insulted.
I honestly haven't looked at the issue, and likely won't at this time. When I looked at the contribs of both the other user and yourself, I found that you had blanketed the same request to multiple admin talk pages. A few issues here - first, it appears to be "forum shopping", trying to request the same action from multiple admins until you find one willing to perform the action you desire. Second, as a result of the spamming of the request - I could spend a large amount of time just to discover someone else has already dealt with the user (a waste of my limited time).
If you are still having an issue, create a single centralized request - a noticeboard such as WP:ANI would be a good place. Multiple users (admins and non-admins - including myself) monitor that noticeboard, and can investigate issues brought to that page, and replies from all parties will make clear if another user has already resolved the issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, it's not my business how he decides to do things, but he should consider at least SPing his user page. Realistically, nobody but him should be editing that anyway... HalfShadow01:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your 20 May 2011 block of User:Tatababy, I guess it's a moot point now that the block has expired, but I don't know if you realized (or for that matter if Tatababy was even aware) that the challenged text in contention that was removed by Tatababy and re-inserted by User:Fountainviewkid among others, was supported with a dead link citation and so might have been covered under WP:CHALLENGE and/or WP:BURDEN. See: [5]. There was even prior discussion on the talk page that the link was dead and needed to be replaced -- which it since has been, and now reworded significantly anyway. I don't know if that would have made any difference in the block... I've had some difficulty with User:Fountainviewkid myself -- trying to get him to understand that consensus on an article talk page doesn't overrule the WP:Verifiability policy. Hopefully I've explained it well enough that he understands it now. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, Tatababy had been warned about 3RR already, so was fully aware of the policy when they proceeded to edit war over the content. Within WP:3RR there is a potential exemption for BLP issues, but that same exemption also states not to rely on that exemption and to instead take issues to WP:BLPN rather than going beyond 3RR.
I am glad that the central issue appears to now be resolved per your comments above; but in this case, a block was appropriate. --- Barek (talk) - 14:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking closely, my guess is differing methodologies and/or definitions of what/who fall into the total being counted (potentially, based on different dates of reference as well, just to add to the confusion). Do either source provide any details on their sources, or how they arrived at their totals? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove my edits about the Cultural Events in the Town of Vail? I am on the Commission on Special Events here and everything I added was annual and correct?
It also took me a while to do!????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.198.212.74 (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Signed Bobby Bank Town of Vail CSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.198.212.74 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for you to promote your city. If that is your goal, other forums or even your own website would be better suited for such content.
I was actually just restoring to the last version of the page prior to the disruptive IP 123.231.112.28 who was undoing my edits to multiple articles (and in the process restoring linkspam, vandalism, insults, etc to various articles that I had previously undone). See WP:ANI#Disruption to make a point - continued abuse of Wikipedia where I brought up the issue of the IP. Let me know if you disagree with any specifics of the removals - sorry that my last edit summary to the article wasn't more clear on what I was doing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Online Banking
Why was the external link removed without specific reason being given to how this is not compliant with WP:ELNO and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY? The site provides informative articles and user views in respect of Online Banking, so don't see how this is spam? 213.52.156.2 (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gave links to a site policy and a site guideline - following to WP:ELNO and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and reading those pages will provide your answers. Wikipedia doesn't exist to promote your website. I suggest finding other venues for that purpose. If you disagree, feel free to bring it up for discussion at the noticeboard at WP:ELN. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the WP:ELNO and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and don't see any violation on these rules. Perhaps you can cite the one you think is in conflict? The aim of the link was to provide wiki users with unbiased additional content which is sourced from banks and users of these services, not for promotion or any commercial gain. 213.52.156.2 (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't see the problem, you're clearly too close to it and may be biased as well as having a COI. Regardless - as I stated above, feel free to take it up at WP:ELN if you disagree.
Also, I've noticed the edit-war going on over the link. It would also be best to achieve consensus for the addition before restoring it yet again - edit warring over the addition will likely result in the page being protected from editing. In severe cases, sites have sometimes been added to the spam blacklist due to repeated re-addition without having established consensus for the link. Blacklisting then prevents the link from being added to any Wikipedia article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't clearly state the problem, then this infers that editing in Wiki is undertaken at the whim of the 'big brother' user without proper consideration and based on their opinion. I'll 'discuss' this further through WP:ELN as requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.52.156.2 (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. Comment borders a personal attack, the review site contains Google ads and Amazon affiliate spam, it isn't a recognized authority for information on the topic? It isn't on the list for WP:ELYES, it isn't on the list of WP:ELMAYBE. If anything, your site would be great at DMOZ, which we should have a link for. tedder (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard it pronounced several different ways. Although, I've never tried typing out the pronunciation, so sounding-out now how I pronounce it, it would be roughly bear-ek (or at least, that would be the closest to how it sounds). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiring about proposed article revision
Hi Barek,
In its current state the Rent-to-own article is lacking proper citations (including dead links and non-WP:RS such as rtohq.com), is not clear and well-written from a readability/WP:MOS perspective, and seems to have become a recurring place for spam and promotional content. I noticed that you've been one of the more active defenders against the non-encyclopedic edits made to this article, so I thought perhaps you could be of help, in the interest of bringing this article up to Wikipedia standards.
After gathering up reliable sources (e.g. NYT, Associated Press) and adding those to a draft, I sought feedback on the article's Talk page about one week ago. That inquiry has yet to receive any response, as one could expect for a somewhat dry topic. Looking to best uphold WP:COI, I've not actually edited this article (hence, the talk page post). Is this something that you'd be able to comment on? No need to feel obliged if this subject is not your cup of tea! Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't been very active on Wikipedia over the past few weeks, due to real-world issues keeping me more occupied than normal. I'll take a look when I get a chance - hopefully this weekend (have a cold that may keep me from enjoying the outdoors as much as I had originally planned this weekend, so may be near a computer). --- Barek (talk) - 16:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry ... I started looking at the changes, but then got side-tracked by a different issue and forgot. I'll take another look tonight. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no worries--I noticed that the Wikiproject Business and Wikiproject Finance talk posts hadn't received any response, but I see that as quite natural for a topic like this. It's not like we're talking about Aerosmith or the iPad! Thanks for your willingness to assess. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Barek, here's to hoping that you've fended off that cold. I happened to notice that you've got limited time online as of late, and I'd like to respect that. As such, would you recommend that I move forward with the suggested edits to Rent-to-own and leave a note on the article's Talk page inviting follow-up feedback? Or would it be best to get an alternate opinion on a relavent noticeboard? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry - my lack of a reply hasn't been very helpful for your efforts to update the article. I should have updated you sooner.
I had previously stepped through your edits at User:Jeff Bedford/Sandbox5 and didn't see anything that was an issue - although I had still planned to look closer at context and phrasing in the new layout - just haven't been able to get to it. Unfortunately, that isn't going to change soon due to less-and-less time available due to real-world priorities.
As I didn't see any initial concerns, I would support making the change with a note to the talk page (in theory, anyone with an interest in the topic would have replied by now - you gave 2.5 weeks for others to review it).
If there are any edits which I missed which you feel have a chance to be controversial, since no one from the related WikiProjects responded, you could try the WP:RFC process to try for additional input. Your call on that. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions, and I can certainly appreciate the need to prioritize real life. After reading through the draft one more time, and reading your recommendations here, I elected to go forth with the edits, as I feel that the updated version is sufficiently objective and well-sourced--certainly leaving the article in a better (in the sense of closer to WP standards) form. In the interest of emphasizing the fact that these edits are merely a step in the right direction, and to clarify that no ownership is implied, I left a follow-up note on the article's Talk page, essentially making note of our discussion while also leaving the floor open for continued revision or feedback for others coming across the article in the future. I see this as a sufficient and reasonable approach, but if you feel otherwise I'm open to adapting it. Appreciate the input and time you spent diverting your attention to this, most thrilling of topics. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklisting of planetill.com
Planetill.com is ranked in the top 37,000 site in the US and the top 143,000 globally (Alexa Ranking). it is an original source on information, news and original entertinment interviews that has been cited as sources for teh BBC, MTV, HipHopDX, SOHH.com and various other sites. I was posting reviews for album because labels send us work before albums get released and many times, we were mroe than a week ahead of release dates. When posting reviews, we never deleted or pushed off any existing work, and we added new infromation to pages when we got first hand/primary source information from the artist or entertainer themselves. We never added anything to self aggrandize our site but pertinent information that fans and researchers should have had access to. I ask humbly that you reconsider the blacklisting. I attempted to discuss my side with the editors at that time and for wahtever reason they were unwilling to even look at the merits of the site. I've trained editors for Billboard, XXL, AllHipHop.com and other legitimate outlets. Please reconsider the blacklist or inform me of what channels i have to go through to get off the list, even if I won't place things on myself. Dr.Deisel 04 June 2011Dr.deisel (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.deisel (talk • contribs)
I have very limited availability online at this time, as a result, I haven't had time to read your full post, nor to investigate what little I did have time to read.
Your initial page creation qualified for speedy deletion as it existed only to advertise with no indication of importance (note:I erroneously listed the deletion reason as A7, it should have shown G11 and/or A1). Your subsequent creations of the page were not legitimate articles, but rather creations for the sole purpose of disrupting Wikipedia to complain about the deletion. The intentional disruption is viewed as vandalism - and as a result of repeated occurances, your account has now been blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Top Trees Link deleted
Hi Barek,
I wonder why you deleted my entry a day or two ago. The link added is an educational link. I re-entered the link today.
Thank you.
The link contains virtually nothing that's not already in the article beyond providing downloads for promotional materials. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your website. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Niche market article
Dear Barek,
Regarding my talk page and reversion of "spam link". The canned message you sent me says to bring up for discussion the inclusion of the link on the articles talk page. If you actually checked the talk page you'll notice I've done this already. You'll also notice the talk page is non-active, and I have added the link, willing to remove it upon request, and then to discuss its inclusion, however no one is open for discussing the links inclusion when it is highly relevant to the article.180.191.145.67 (talk)
Edit warring over addition of the link despite consensus against it demonstrated by its removal by multiple parties is not the way to achieve your goal. The burden is on you to establish a changed consensus before re-adding the link, not the other way around. I have replied on the article talk page with further comments. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You just undid my contribution to camping.Your comment specifies it as "trivial". I strongly disagree. Here is why: a) campers do bring swimsuits with them on some occasions. b) I find it important to have a picture of a camper in a swimsuit in front of a tent for better comprehension. c) I am not promoting my girlfriend's body. Please elaborate within the next 24 hours as to why you do not agree. Thanks. Kodenamezeus (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's self-evident that if one wants to swim, and does not plan to go naked, they would need a swimsuit. It's trivial and not worth mentioning. For other activity-specific examples: if you want to play frisbee while camping, you need to bring a frisbee - want to fly a kite, then bring a kite. It's a secondary activity that requires its own materials, not a direct function of camping. Even if I were to buy into the idea that it's equipment related to camping, a photo does not help convey any more understanding of the subject of camping.
If you disagree with m actions, the place to continue the discussion is on the article talk page which has more visibility to more users than my user talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument fails to make a valid point. Observing the list in the camping equipment section, the following items have nothing of mandatory in camping process: hiking boots, fishing pole, sunscreen, personal care, portable oven. Following your logic, they all should be removed. Moreover, a tarp is seldom a mandatory equipment, at least not more than are swimsuits, and yet you tolerate its picture on the article's page. I have asked you to respond with a valid argument within a 24 hour interval. Why am I imposing conditions? Because I consider your behavior unmotivated, which, with all due respect, is akin to reverting vandalism. The primary use of Wikipedia is that of adding to better article contribution, and only if the addition made is clearly of bad faith, should it be removed so promptly. You invite me to discuss the issue on the article's talk box. Unless a rule exists inviting users to do so before adding it to the article, my understanding was that only the headline must be discussed first before it is changed. Is adding akin to changing? If I may, a small suggestion: before removing added content, even if you decide to do so without notifying the contributor, keep in mind leaving him or her a small note on the talk page explaining what you did and why you did. Only then IMO can you pinpoint the article's discussion page and invite the contributors to discuss it there. I welcome any WP policy that exists that contradicts my understanding. Thanks, Kodenamezeus (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided valid points. Also, be aware that no site policy nor guideline supports your imposition of arbitrary conditions on another editor. Your disagreement with the points that I have raised does not make those points invalid - instead, it means we have a content dispute, and WP:DR would apply.
Article talk pages are for discussing changes to its associated article or project page - see WP:TALK. You asked for my reasons, and I politely responded as well as requesting that further discussion take place on the article talk page. It is not an unreasonable request. See WP:BRD for an informal outline on editing processes, which also supports that the place to discuss content disputes is on the article talk page.
As to your comparisons - a strong argument can be made that with the exception of a fishing pole, the other equipment you mentioned are relevant to camping (not exclusively, but still strongly related). However, the fact that other stuff exists does not automatically mean more should be added, particularly when the content addition is clearly disputed.
I have the article on my watchlist, and will see your discussion there. Please, continue the discussion on the article talk page which has better visibility for the subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The submitted request isn't structured correctly for an RfA submittal. If you go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate, there's a tool that can help generate the page with the correct layout. The existing page could be deleted by tagging it with {{db-g7}} so as to make room for the correctly formatted version.
I did notice that your account is extremely new, which frequently results in unsuccessful RfA attempts as there's very little for the community to go on to evaluate your understanding of site policies, guidelines, and standard processes - as well as having limited interaction with other editors by which to evaluate your behavior. It would be beneficial for you to spend several months getting involved in developing article content and participating in one or more noticeboard which may interest you. However, if you do wish to attempt pursuing adminship now, be sure to review Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, which can provide an outline of the process. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice. Looks like it's already dealt with, so no need for me to comment at this time. I'll make a minor note at ANI, even though the main issue was resolved by other admins after their review of the edit histories. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I promise that?!? As long as none of the bodies are found none of the admins come out to claim I've been abusing them, I think I'm safe .... this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Harvey Page
I am trying to update info on Guy Harvey's page and you keep deleting everything I post. Why did you delete the external links? Those are all legitimate Guy Harvey links. Also, I reposted the Awards & Honors section again and added sources this time - is this better? Please advise on the ext links issue. Thanks.
Thank you for adding references for the awards section. Having references is important for any article, but especially for additions to articles about living persons (see WP:BLP).
On the external links:
guyharvey.com Guy
Links to two pages: one which is solely commercial in nature, and the other which is blacklisted due to prior abuse on Wikipedia.
guyharveyoceanfoundation.com
I appologize, this one should be added back into the article, as Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation is a redirect to Guy Harvey, so is the most appropriate place for that link. I'll add it back in now.
nova.edu/ocean/ghri
More appropriately linked from Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center (where the link is already used as a ref, although the formatting over there needs to be fixed, I'll work on that).
guyharvey.wordpress.com
PR site - being officially endorsed is not the same as being his personal blog, so fails WP:ELNO
guyharveymagazine.com Guy
effectively an advert for the magazine, and fails WP:ELNO
Thanks, Barek. I am new to this so still learning. Can you elaborate on the guyharvey.com site being blacklisted? What was the "prior abuse". And, how do you determine if a site is too commercial? BarakObama.com is listed as an external site on BO's page but its just a fundraising site asking for money. That's a heck of a lot more commercial than guyharvey.com. Also, I have seen lots of other pages about living persons that contain ext links that are commercial. Seems like the judgement is kind of subjective. Thanks again for your help/comments.
The guyharvey.com site is nothing but a directory, linking to two sites. One is pure commercial (guyharveyart.com), while the other is guyharveyinc.com. The blacklisting resulted from a request submitted to WP:SBL in 2009, after multiple IPs disrupted Wikipedia by edit warring over links to several commercial sites that use his name.
If you disagree with my categorization of a site as being too commercial, feel free to bring it up for discussion on the article's talk page, or at WP:ELN (which has more traffic of users who may see the question). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove my internal link without any comment in the "comment field" or changes? Adding internal links in the section on "software for property management" is OK in my opinion. The text in this section is currently without any references (for example about drop in the prices due to rise of online services, etc) so it is fine to include some references to the software which exists. Pcirrus2 (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to follow-up by adding it to the "see also" section where it's a more appropriate link, but got side-tracked by other issues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
External link for List of Oregon wineries and vineyards, Carl Maria von Weber and Oregon Wine
I’m a new editor on Wikipedia. I recently tried to add an external link to what I believe is relevant content that is found in Linfield College’s institutional repository. I am not trying to spam, add inappropriate links, or promote a product. Because the material is directly related to the topic, I’m not sure why this link would be considered inappropriate. Can you explain why you removed the external link? Thank you!Ssumkhu (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note, this editor left a similar message on my talk page as well as on User talk:Jmh649. I responded on his talk page. Given the multiplicity of editors who have reverted his edits, and the unrelated nature of the articles to which the edits were made, that's the most logical place to discuss this series of edits to prevent fragmentation of the discussion among the talk pages of the many editors who reverted his edits and the many articles that he targeted. The sole common characteristic of the 19 links added (other than the target site) is that User talk:Ssumkhu made them, so it's best to continue the dialog there rather than on three (so far) editors' talk pages. TJRC (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP Spam in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Spam for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks...
...for fixing the links I broke on the homelessness page so quickly!
R2. Redirects, apart from shortcuts, from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. This is a shortcut, therefore these criteria are invalid for the case. Furthermore, the speedying template is interfering with the shortcut's operation. --Bowser423 (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated on the talk page - yes, it is applicable. It is a redirect out of article space that points to User_talk (note, user_talk is not the same as talk). See also Wikipedia:Shortcut for clarification on appropriate use of shortcuts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why?
Why are you after T'snow warning?
Why do you dislike the psuedonamespace "WX:"?
Why are you chasing pages and redirects that I create, of all people?
Why did you go and Tornado my redirects?
Why my contribs?
Why are you using N/A Speedying criteria (R2/R3)?
Why are you spending your time and mine on these things?
Why are you following my edits around?
Why are you making it harder to get to the DCATE list?
Why are you referring to a 6.5 month old term as new?
a) I'm not after it - you added content that lacked a reliable source to the Thundersnow warning page. I found that page when I was looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Severe Thundersnow Warning, and attempting to find other sources - one of the Google results I found pointed to Thundersnow, which apon review turned out to have the same issues as the article at AfD, no reliable sources.
b) As to WX: and WX:DCATE, they were invalid shortcuts - not supported as an exception for a redirect out of the main article space. It's not up to users to arbitrarilly decide to create pseudo-namespaces, only a limited group exist, and they are listed at Wikipedia:Shortcut#List of prefixes. Creation of additional ones would require community consensus.
d) I did not delete the redirects, although I did nominate them for deletion as they were invalid redirects out of the main namespace into user_talk namespace. Another admin did the deletions after reviewing the pages.
e) Already addressed above ... I'm not targeting your contribs, I've edited dozens of pages entirely un-related to you today alone - hundreds of pages this month.
f) The speedy deletion criterias were applicable - the redirects were not allowed under WP policies and guidelines.
g) I have no control on how you spend your time - I am spending my time on cleaning up Wikipedia, and you have been handing me material to cleanup.
h) Already answered a few times - this question is redundant.
i) I am not making it harder to get to the DCATE list, it still remains, untouched, in your user subpage. I even helped others find it after WX:DCATE was deleted by fixing the link at talk:Thundersnow to point to the actual page, not the deleted redirect.
j) I'm not certain I've refered to the term myself as "new" ... but that's not important ... the term may not be new to you, but to the rest of the world, it appears to be unknown. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Severe Thundersnow Warning, where the need for third-party reliable sources has been repeatedly pointed out to you.
Following up re item (j), I have referenced it several times as a neologism - which while not directly calling it new, I can see why you would say that I had. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I try to find the article to verify, I only get this message "Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_CONSTANT_ENCAPSED_STRING, expecting ')' in /var/www/html/worldnetdaily.com/fusebox4.runtime.php4.php on line 625" is the article available somewhere ? Slowart (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd, the article opens correctly for me. Which browser are you using? Do you have any add-ons, extensions, or toolbars installed in your browser that might be preventing the page from loading? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just tested several browsers, and was able to open it in Chrome, Firefox 5, Internet Explorer 9, and even on my phone with the Android stock browser. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great got it in Foxfire. Thanks for changing some of the unsupported text, can we find a better source than World Daley Net ? The WDN article is written with slant and I don't think it is a reliable source, but we can check. Slowart (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just restored the source because the removal reason didn't make sense to me - then trimmed some of the unsupported text ... but I agree, ideally, a better quality source would benefit the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I come across a page that is blatantly obvious that it should be deleted, and I have no past history with the article, I will delete it.
And, incidentally, I did exhibit restraint regarding you ... when looking at the history of pages I delete, I routinely look at the edit history of primary editors of those pages. When looking at your edits,I saw you again removed a speedy tag after a level-four warning not to do so, with clear evidence of edit warring over the addition of the tag - an action for which policy supports blocking your account.
Incidentally, continued gaming the system by applying humor tags to pages in order to bypass speedy deletion tags is likely to result in your account getting blocked - particularly in cases like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Alert Message Encoding where the page is obviously not intended as humor but is attempting to establish a non-consensus driven process change. To be clear, you won't be blocked by me, but I will start a discussion on this at WP:ANI should the disruptive behavior continue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not gaming the system. I was making a panic-driven last-ditch effort to make clear that I was NOT trying to make a process change. It was to be an unregulated information system, with no force and no effect except to inform. Perhaps the new changes to the page will make it more clear. I could have made those changes at the time without the panic. The fact is, because of how quickly you delete speedy candidates of mine, I was afraid you would not let me finish the mods before you deleted it, so I inserted the closest thing I could think of to the actual issue that would be applied that quickly. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up03:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It supplies information about the choir for Waterford Cathedral, Ireland and a history of the Organ and Organists - this information is allowed on other pages in this encyclopedia such as St. Finbarre's Cathedral Cork. It is not about a musical group of a commercial kind which your reason for deletion seems to be. They are of interest to tourists and to the people of Waterford city.
See Wikipedia:CSD#A7, which indicates the criteria under which the article was deleted, which states: "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." Being commercial or non-commercial has no impact on this criteria. Simply existing does not indicate importance or significance.
Note also that had it not been deleted under CDS#A7, it also did not meet the notability guideline defined at WP:BAND, which unless resolved would have also likely resulted in deletion following a community deletion discussion. If your goal is to provide a community guide, you may be better served by using a community website (presuming one exists) instead of using Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I add this information to the age which already exists in Wikipedia for The Cathedral of the Most Holy Trinity, Waterford, will it be allowed there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckth (talk • contribs) 00:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I add this information to the page which already exists in Wikipedia for The Cathedral of the Most Holy Trinity, Waterford, will it be allowed there? July 24 Ckth (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Barek - you're killing me! You delete everything I add to the Guy Harvey page. Its all factual info that is relevant to who he is/what he does. I sourced the info as well. What am I still doing wrong? Thanks in advance for your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawsr123 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 28 July 2011
I didn't delete everything, although it's trimmed considerably. The problem is that the article is about Guy Harvey, the person - not about the GHRI or GHOF. It's reasonable to give a general overview of the organizations he founded - but the level of detail was going needlessly off-subject. Perhaps if additional third-party reliable sources exist (if there's enough to meet the criteria of WP:ORG), the greater detail would be reasonable for creating articles about the organizations where greater detail would be appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK - makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
Mexico City E-learning
Why did you remove the external link for the quiz on the Mexico City article? The quiz directly supports the material in the article by letting the reader complete the loop by assessing their understanding of the material in the article. This enhances the material greatly. The external links on there now, in contrast, do not do that, and you chose to leave them. Let's see, there is a broken link to http://www.viadf.com.mx/ a Free Online Route Planner for all public transport services in Mexico City, which doesn't support the material, and never did. A overtly commercial site, with no knowledge or understanding is Mexico City Tourism Ministry http://mexicocity.gob.mx/ which lets you book flights and hotels - not an especially educational pursuit. The external link for the quiz on the Mexico City article directly supported and enhanced the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLRkahuna (talk • contribs) 22:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Wikipedia's purpose to provide links to your website so that readers can "test" their understanding of the material. The fact that other links exist which need to be cleaned up is not a justification to add additional links which are not appropriate per WP:EL and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using the other external links as justification, I pointed them out because of the arbitrary nature of the edit/removal of the links I added, while poor links remain unedited. Either one tries to enhance the Mexico City article with clean up, or one is just removing one set of links en masse because of a lack of understanding of the benefit to the Wikipedia visitor who is reading the Mexico City article.
I read the criteria for external links, and I think the link is very appropriate. The criteria states: "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader (it is very helpful), but they should be kept minimal (one link is minimal), meritable (it has great merit since it extends the readers' brain in a direction that the original article [and any Wiki media] cannot take it), and directly relevant to the article (the link is directly relevant to Mexico City)." It meets the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLRkahuna (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to develop traffic to your website. The site does not meet the criteria of WP:ELYES, nor WP:ELMAYBE. The site does not present new material that is not already in the article; instead, it restates material already presented within the article, simply in a different format (ie: a quiz). By it's very nature, it fails the criteria of WP:EL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the link is to enhance the experience of the Wikipedia visitor. Whether it generates traffic or not is irrelevant to the discussion. Wikipedia doesn't have to have any external links whatsoever. But if a link is allowed there should be an expectation of a value-add to the Wikipedia visitor who is interested in continuing to explore that topic in ways that Wikipedia does not provide. Is that a consideration or not? From Wikipedia's linking page, "Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link." My question is whether you are applying your edit to either one of the ideals expressed in that sentence.
A quiz goes way beyond simple restatement of material. So does a translation, even though it is the same material in a different format (different language). A quiz is rooted and based on that material, if it was not, it might not be relevant. By that logic, a quiz on anything but the material in the article would be kosher. As Wikipedia's Five Pillars reminds us, "The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording." The spirit of the rules is to make sure the experience of the Wikipedia visitor is the primary consideration. As it applies to links, it means "based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers", and it meets that criteria 100%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLRkahuna (talk • contribs) 00:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have no interest in improving Wikipedia, only in promoting your site. Attempts to shoe-horn in some concept of a quiz being of benefit is absurd, and your attempts to Wikilawyer to get around WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE are irrelevant. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing could be more false. Wikipedia has to be enhanced by addition, not subtraction. By applying literal wording only in the context where it supports your opinion, there wouldn't be an external link on any page. You have not considered the Wikipedia visitor and what they would find to be of benefit relevant to the page or topic. Your comments about developing traffic are absurd, what link when clicked does not generate traffic? That applies to every single external link on Wikipedia not any one link in particular. You get traffic from Google, not Wikipedia. Who does that?
Take another look at the Mexico City article which you purport to be improving. Look at # Mexico City travel guide from Wikitravel, they get 'traffic' from every click, they get a sheckel from showing the ads, does a commercial travel site meet all the criteria on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL? You and I both know that it does not. Look at the two top links. They go to Spanish-language web sites. The Mexico City article is in English, not Spanish. They already have Wikipedia in Spanish to link to Spanish web sites. Tell me how any Spanish web site is "of immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers" who are reading an English article. Finally, look at # Mexico City at the Open Directory Project - it's a link farm! With the time you spent on this today, you have not enhanced the Mexico City page with your actions, you have diminished it, and it's quite a disappointment. Please consider the visitors to the page as a primary consideration, and what they might find useful. I don't even know what Wikilawyer means, but I have a feeling it's tossed out there when common sense has been set aside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLRkahuna (talk • contribs) 01:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You again bring up other links, as I pointed out before, the fact that other links exist is irrelevant - and your opinion on the appropriateness of the various links goes contrary to established community consensus.
You continue to recycle the same false arguments - as such, I won't bother replying again. This discussion is pointless as your sole purpose is promotion of your site, not the betterment of Wikipedia - so the fundamental premise of your position is false.
The premise that my sole purpose is promotion of the site is absolutely false, and there is no criteria on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL that could possibly lead you to that conclusion, it's the conclusion of based on one person's bias and not a community. You have not taken the visitors to the page as a primary consideration, that is clear. There is no established community consensus that prohibits the linking of a quiz based on the material in an article. There are no false arguments, just a desire to improve the content at Wikipedia by value-add. I don't see your value-add anywhere, in your edits, nor your comments. Please take a second look at this and consider what a real person using Wikipedia might want, keeping the spirit of Wikipedia alive and moving forward, not stuck in 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLRkahuna (talk • contribs) 02:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested twice that you take this to WP:ELN. As you refuse to do so, I've gone ahead and started a thread there at WP:ELN#teachlearnrepeat.com.
Missed a section break, thought you were connecting one debate with another. sorry.
Good work trying to outreach those feeling suicidal-- if you save one life, it's worth a million mistakes. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be adding "see also" entries to a good number of state articles. In theory, I have no objection to adding relevant links; but the majority of the new links already exist in the body of the article - and as a general rule, I'm not a big fan of needless redundant clutter. So, I object to the mass additions of these links.
Is there an existing discussion that took place on these additions? They seem to be discouraged per WP:ALSO, "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a 'See also' section, and navigation boxes at the bottom of articles may substitute for many links." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been maintaining the See also sections of country, territory, province, and state articles for the past couple years. Inevitably some redundancies do creep in. Please remove any links you find redundant and I will do the same. Yours aye, Buaidh 03:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
wikipresent
Here's a wikipresent. You won't see me, or I won't write ya, for 10 days... or, perhaps, a month. It's as if you or someone of your collegues had blocked me, see? --Crystall Ball (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P. S. If you don't like rabbits, that's no problem. You can remove this image and, eventually, this change (if possibile).
How is listing where alumni go to secondary schools trivial? People who look at schools want to know this. The information is in the same vein as many other schools who list notable alumni: there is an interest in life after a student has attended an institution. It's not promotional--there was no commentary on the schools, merely a factual list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomchandler1950 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a list of persons who meet Wikipedia's guideline on notability (see WP:BIO), then it's appropriate to list those names. However, an advert listing of where your students continue onto is not appropriate. See also WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#WNTI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the comment made by a European breeder who is discrediting US breeders is an opinion and should not be permitted. How can that be ok to have a European breeder's biased comment as part of the article? It is reasons such as this as to why people do not feel that Wikipedia is a good source for correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3faces (talk • contribs) 07:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Three problems with your comment: First, your post in the Pixie-bob article was argumentative, clearly personal commentary/discussion of the content - at best, that belongs on the talk page, not in the article itself. Second, check the article, at the same time I removed your post I had also removed the unsourced original research that you were commenting against - that material isn't even in the article anymore. And third, as to your comment about Wikipedia being a source of information, check the link labelled "Disclaimer" that's at the bottom of every page on Wikipedia ... that page says in large type that "Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity" - Wikipedia makes no attempt to hide this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My problems with your comments:
1. My post that you deemed "argumentative" was immediately removed after it was posted. I have to wonder why the post I commented on was permitted in the first place and not immediately removed. (Thank you for removing it after you removed my "argumentative" post.
2. Wikipedia's disclaimer regarding accurate information is not an excuse for posts that contain inaccurate information and I think Wikipeda needs to focus on becoming a more reliable source for information. Inaccurate information can be very harmful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3faces (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, see WP:BOLD. Don't argue in articles - if there's a problem, fix it. If the fix is undone, then discuss the content changes on the article talk pages, not in the article itself. Wikipedia is maintained by volunteers who choose to edit the articles, when they have time - not by paid staff who monitor articles 24/7.
As to timing ... I saw your post when it was done as I have the page on my watchlist. At the time of the original post, I was likely away from my computer and didn't see it, although someone else had seen it and tagged it as needing sources (likely wasn't removed immediately as it wasn't debating, but attempting to present information).
As to the disclaimer, I did not bring it up as an excuse, but in response to your statement "It is reasons such as this as to why people do not feel that Wikipedia is a good source for correct information" - it's no secret, Wikipedia openly admits it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really
I never knew that copyright exists if it is copied from wikipedia? OMG how did this get to you. Did Future Perfect at Sunrise tell you about it? I am seriously going to It is my userpage it is not an atricle on wikipeida! Do you know what a userpage is? Well of course you do you've got one. With pictures it is not copyright violation if it was copied from wikipedia. So you're saying that 90% of people should get because they have pics from wiki, not pics from google images or any other pic browser. Well if you understand this please do not delete my userpage and ban me from editing other people's things.
Edit warring to restore copyrighted content is never a good idea. You have been provided links to both WP:COPYVIO and WP:UP, the second one clearly states at Wikipedia:User pages#Copyright violations, "The same rules for copyright apply on userpages as in article space."
As to images, every image on Wikipedia should have a copyright tag, stating the license under which it is made available. Re-use of those images elsewhere without abiding by the license terms can result in the original copyright holder having an issue with the use of the images, if they are aware of that usage ... but at that point, it's out of our hands as it's off-wiki, so would be between the copyright holder and whomever uses the images. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed Barek's block as requested. I think a 12-hour block after due warning is fair and proportionate, and it is due to expire very shortly in any case. Fuller explanation on user's talk page. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)11:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with that sock case, although I see you've already submitted the IP for review so those more familiar with those issues can address him/her. If you want the page protection reduced, you can request it at WP:RFPP - although if the IP is blocked via the sock review, I'll reduce the protection myself at that point. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This IP appears to be asking for a one year block. If that were to happen they'd be eligible for an abuse report to the ISP and in that case I would be happy to make that request. Jojalozzo16:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is referenced
Please see here for my explanation, but the text you've reverted here was (is) referenced. The newbie (student) editor has trouble referencing it, but the source it cited, and it is not plagiarised. May I suggest you help them to reference it properly (tell them how to turn the page numbers from in parenthesis to being properly displayed), rather than just reverting them? Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me03:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, I overlooked the ref at the top of the page as it was so far out of place, making the text look entirely unreferenced. That said, even with that ref, it was not clear that the added text is related to the misplaced source, nor that the numbers in parenthesis were page numbers (as you stated in your explanation to another editor). Had it been at all obvious, I would have attempted to fix the refs myself.
I did notice that due to inexperience in their editing attempts, they are at risk of inadvertently breaking WP:3RR. While I recognize the issues here and would not block them myself - that may not be the case for others. As a result, I suggested on their talk page that they attempt to draft their changes rather than saving intermediate edits - either using "show preview" until they have completed changes, or by drafting the edits in a subpage of their userspace. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aeroponics
Hi,
The link I been adding to aeroponics is not spam and contains subject matter relevant to the subject. It did exist in the external links section for a few weeks before people started deleting it. Subsequently take a look at the the nasa link for low mass aeroponics in the external links section, it is a garbage page not offering wikipedia readers any value at all. Link I added is full of articles and pictures on aeroponics, not selling anything. I know the link does not matter to search engines. I do not link build, the link does deliver traffic 6 uniques a day from wikipedia aeroponic page all interested in my subject matter of aeroponics. Its a win win in my opinion, wikipedia readers get more information on aeroponics and I get more quality traffic interested in my writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonlildragon (talk • contribs) 20:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link that you are repeatedly adding into Wikipedia fails our inclusion criterias at WP:ELNO as well as WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Additionally, the site fails WP:RS and should therefore also not be used as a reference.
Lastly, you also appear to have a conflict of interest in adding the link, as you claim the site to be your own. COI editors should be very cautious when adding material, and not edit war over that content when removed, but instead discuss it on the article talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers (re Bahamut13's talk page)
I was trying to figure out how to separate the tabs and leave off the guidelines, which are wholly irrelevant now. This works as an interim. CycloneGU (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why remove the SolidSurface.com link added to the external references page of "Solid Surface"?
Barek,
I am confused as to why you would remove the link to SolidSurface.com on the "Solid Surface" page? The domain name is the definition of the material, and it is one of the very few places online that people can actually find and purchase this wonderful and versatile material. We help manufacturers, distributors, and fabricators sell their overstock, discontinued, or remnant products that otherwise would go to the landfill. We provide material across the board from industry fabricators, to commercial outfits, cabinet shops, and even direct to DIY homeowners. I think it is very relevant to the "Solid Surface" Wikipedia page, and provides an added value to the information. I hope you can take this into consideration. Thank you
216.81.57.38 (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Kyle, 20 September 2011[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't permit links to primarily commercial sites, no matter how much their URL resembles the subject. You may not use Wikipedia to advertise your site. Acroterion(talk)17:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't view it as insulting as calling it "Spam" considering it does provide a service to the industry, but I can appreciate that it is indeed primarily a commercial outfit, and will adhere to the rules. Please note that the other related links posted on the "Solid Surface" page all develop content to profit from advertising or subscriptions. I am not sure that is really much different than selling a product. 216.81.57.38 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Kyle, 20 September 2011[reply]
Dear Barek
Dear Barek,
Hello Sir, I wonder, why did you delete the last wikipedia page which I created?
Luxury Rules
I am trying to create it again, please I am new here on wikipedia, I am doing the best of my own, with internal wikipedia links.
20:21, 23 September 2011 Barek (talk | contribs) deleted "Luxury Rules" (A7: Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
Please note that Wikipedia does not exist to help promote your publication - simply existing does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Even if claims of importance were added, the article could still be deleted if it failed to establish notability as defined at WP:CORP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
?
Inappropriate links? Why? Also, on the Splinter Cell: Conviction Page, the link to my wiki had been removed, yet the Splinter Cell Wiki gets a link! Unless you didn't know, both of those belong to Wikia, and so are both unofficial. Sorry that I have no account, by the way. 83.104.45.51 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being on Wikia is not entirely the reason your link was removed - likewise, being an IP was unrelated. Also, the fact that other links exist is not an open invitation to add additional ones. In this specific case, see WP:ELNO #12, "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. While a good idea generally, I don't think it was necessary at this time. I warned both of those who edit-warred and they seem to accept to stop that behavior; unless others start to edit-war, blocking them if they continue is imho the better way to go instead. Regards SoWhy20:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I had seen the content dispute had picked up speed the last couple days ... I should have checked the user talk pages. If you wish to remove the page protection, I won't dispute it or re-instate it unless the situation changes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barek. I would like to understand why you deleted my External Link to a YouTube video of the subject of this article. Is it generally unacceptable to link to YouTube, did you feel the video itself was inappropriate, or is there another reason? I see other school articles with almost identical links so assumed it was ok to add one here. Thanks. Architectsea (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Talk:Architectsea[reply]
Feel free to bring the link up for discussion on the article talk page, or at WP:ELN, or at the talk page for WP:WPSCHOOLS - actually, as you state similar are on other school articles, one of those last two forums would probably be best as it gives a centralized location so the discussion wouldn't need to be repeated for each article. As to why I removed it, I believe the video fails WP:EL, WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OTHER, and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a query with regards to the 'Canvas Print' page which you have recently edited: Could you explain why there is an extermal link allowed to artbypeople.co.uk in the references section, but you removed the link to yourimage2canvas.co.uk - both links are for different references and both link to the options/glossary pages, which offer additional information. This practice is common throughout Wikipedia and was not intended as a spam link as you referenced it.
I am happy to add further detail to the Wiki entry, but was concerned that I would be duplicating content held on another site. Let me know the best way to proceed.
The existing link, while not ideal, at least presents the information from a non-promotional and neutral point of view; while the link to www.yourimage2canvas.co.uk/options is a blatantly promotional advertisement. There's really no comparing of the two. Wikipedia is not the place to spam advertising links to your commercial business. See WP:EL and WP:SPAMLINK. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain 'non-promotional'? - Surely a page stating 'Buying and Picking Canvas Art' would suggest it was promotional. In addition to that, could you explain why the reference to 'Poly Canvas' could not just be explained Wikipedia? And the actual link placed on [Canvas Print] for [Poly Canvas] is to a non-existent page? Paul 9DT (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the existing link is not ideal - in an ideal world, we would have a ref pointing to an industry trade organization or publication. But, the difference between the existing link and the new one are glaringly obvious to anyone who reads the full text of each.
Now, if Poly canvas isn't even notable enough to be mentioned in the canvas print article, that's a different issue - and feel free to discuss that on the article talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PROJECT
Hello,
As I messaged another user I am a student doing work for a project using Wikipedia. The previous user finished my reference before I had a chance to go back and finish it. So I lost the comparison page from the original to my citation. I am new to editing wikipedia so it takes longer for me to make my revisions. I have to hand in revisions as a part of my project which is why I had to add to the title in order to be able to compare my page to a previous page without the revision. So I would appreciate it if you would allow time wherever you see my name before correcting one of my edits. Otherwise I cannot take credit for them. Thank You!
Hey, since you didnt like how i changed the Cienega page you can maybe help me by explaining why the thumbnail doesnt pop up on facebook even though i uploaded it on wikipedia.
when i change the text it also appears changed on facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyWhonny (talk • contribs) 14:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a question for Facebook. As long as they abide by the licensing requirements of Wikipedia, we really don't concern ourselves with how our formatting displays when viewed through a different site - our priority is meeting Wikipedia's internal policies and guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was out of town for the weekend without reliable internet access. It looks like you've got the article pretty far along and well sourced - looks good. I did a quick image search, but haven't spotted one yet with a copyright license that would be compatible with use on Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's all under control. Have asked for a DYK. A picture would help the article: he was a real tough gnarly guy, and some of the newspapers have nice pics that show that. We really need help from one of his fellow fellrunners. I did not put in much by way of a generic discussion of fellrunning. Do you think it needs it? 7&6=thirteen (☎)03:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the link, that I added, dropped on the high altitude cooking article? I think it has good, to-the-point info on the subject and should be allowed. The link URL is: mountainprofessor.com/high-altitude-cooking.html Thanks, Whit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitaker Fulton (talk • contribs) 01:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your site. The site offers nothing not already better sourced within the article - and it fails the Wikipedia guideline to be used as an external link, as well as failing the guideline to be a reliable source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barek,
OK, thats fair enough but I did not delibertly break any guidelines and its not right for you to imply that. If you want to remove the link thats fine but to call the site spam is over the top as you know that both of the editors(Fraserfir and Whitaker Fulton[yes thats me and I do know Fraserfir]) you mentioned are newbies and didn't know any better. I happen to know that the site is from a very credible source so you need to quit calling mountainprofessor.com spam just because some editors made a technical mistake and it needs to be removed from that spam list ASAP! Thanks, Whit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.120.96 (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link is not on a "spam list" - to be on the spam blacklist, it would first need to be reported to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, which has not been done. However, the link has been reported to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, which is an internal forum where abuse of the external links are tracked (the abuse being intentional or not does not matter for this usage).
In this case, the link was originally added to multiple articles by Fraserfir (talk·contribs) in June 2011 - after which the links were removed and the user warned. Then in October, the user again added the link to one of the same articles. At that time, the link was reported to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, because it is the type of behavior which is within that forum's scope to track. Shortly after that report, a reviewing admin (not myself) agreed that Fraserfir's only contributions were to add the link rather than to work constructively on Wikipedia - and so that user account was blocked indefinitely as it was clearly a "Spam / advertising-only account" (that's the reason listed in the block notice). Four days later, Whitaker Fulton (talk·contribs) then adds the URL to that same article. The link was again removed, a warning posted to the user's talk page, and the report at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam was updated to reflect another account adding the link - again, tracking behavior for which that forum was created.
Please note that after a period of no additional updates, reports at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam are automatically archived, at which point the link will no longer be as clearly visible on the main page of that forum. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Barek,
I understand that they were warned but the warnings were not specific as to exactly what was wrong and they honestly didn't understand. So I think you should have a little more grace with newbies and explain the reasons why ,specificly, when you block one of their edits. To say that they are spammers and to say that their account "was clearly a Spam / advertising-only account" is just flat-out mean. One more thing ---- does this mean that even a well seasoned Wiki editor,like yourself who knows all about the ins and outs of the guidelines, won't be able to link to mountainprofessor.com if they so see fit? Thanks, Whit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.120.96 (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The warnings given to the users contained non-technical terms, and contained links to relevant pages that could provide expanded explanations. The warnings also listed the specific URL which had resulted in the warning, and provided helpful guidance on how to proceed. These warnings are still visible at User talk:Fraserfir and User talk:Whitaker Fulton.
At this time, the URL has not been added to the spam blacklist. Technically, this means that no automated means is currently employed to prevent the addition of the link. However, if it were added anywhere, the person who adds it should be able to justify the link as meeting Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as the external links guidelines and the reliable sources guideline. Those with any sort of connection to the site should also familiarize themselves with the conflict of interest guideline and the linkspam guideline. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our domains are not spam links we are Geo domainers and our posts are all about geo domains. if your search Wikipedia you will see that there is a section on geo domains. so can you please stop cutting out my posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domainscot (talk • contribs) 22:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you post links? From your post, I'm not sure what article you are referencing nor the actual activity on it with which you are concerned. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of WP:VANDAL, and the users edits were vandalism. Unfortunately, you are only seeing part of the activity - the user had also replaced File:Albanian.gif with an animated image of a hand giving the middle finger ... removing the image from the article was part of a broader behavior pattern that is partially hidden now as the offending image record has since been deleted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you undid my edits for Bank of America, simply because the previous information was documented. While it was documented, it is incorrect. There is no reason for this article to have any information on the Bank of Italy on it aside from the infomation relative to the establishment of the Bank of America in 1928-1929. The Bank of Italy page covers that history and there is no need to repeat it, just as there is no need to repeat the information concerning the Bank of America, Los Angeles, which per-dates the entrance of Giannini into the picture.
Restoring the paragraph without even trying to talk with me about the edits merely serves the purpose to continue the myth at Giannini found BoA and he did it on his own. Both of the following article deatil Monnette's role in the merger, Resolution
The main reason that I reverted was that the original text satisfies Wikipedia's requirements of verifiability by supplying reliable sources, while the new text did not.
Would you mind re-posting the question on the article talk page? Or, if you prefer, I can copy the above over there. Discussions about the article content should be on the article talk page, so we can get additional editors reviewing it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I posted my rationale for the edits immediately after I made them? I don't mean to be flip, but did ever consider looking at the talk page before performing your revert? Perhaps that would have answered some of questions before you did the revert. Sjkoblentz (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration - but I did check the article talk page before reverting. You had not posted yet.
From the article and talk page history tabs, listing server times: you edited the article at 20:30, 19 October 2011 ... my revert was at 20:40, 19 October 2011 ... and your comment to the talk page was at 20:47, 19 October 2011.
I did not re-check the article talk page before posting my reply above, had I done so, I would have noticed that you had already posted there after my revert and would not have made my request above - sorry about that. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of documenting this matter and have found citations in the American Bankers Journal, which I will use in the proper format. But I do feel strongly that the backstory to the Bank of Italy and Gianinni need to be reduced. It gives the impression that he and only he forged the first itteration of the BoA and snuff's out Monnette's contributions. It is fair to treat the matter as it happened, a merger of equals, not the brainchild of one. Give me a few days to get the writing and the citations in order, please? Sjkoblentz (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once you have the references to support the revised version, feel free to update it at that point. But for now, we should remain with the only version that is currently referenced. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orcas Island article
"being notable is irrelevant - the article is about the island, not the museum. The link would be appropriate in article about the museum, but not in an article about the island" - Your most recent edit summary on the reversion is much more explanatory and appropriate, something your original edit summary lacked. Reasonable explanations for reverting are always preferable and appreciated. Even so, if notability isn't the issue, why did you bring up notability to begin with ("if the museum is notable, the link would belong in its own article, but not here")? Lhb1239 (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The original revert reason was quite reasonable, completely accurate, and appropriate. The second revert reason was essentially the same message, just clarified based on your stated misinterpretation of the first revert reason.
The reason I brought up notability should be self-evident. If the museum is notable, as you claim is established, then the link would be appropriate in an article about the museum - but not in an article about the island. There's no need to expand further on the obviousness of that statement. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you say. Regardless, I believe you could have been more succinct and accurate in your edit summary explanation the first time around. The first time you mention "notability" as the reason for reverting, the second time you say notability has nothing to do with the reversion. Practically anyone would be scratching their heads over that, I believe. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you say. However, notability was not listed as the reason for removal, simply mentioned to help explain where the link would instead be appropriate. I tend to give readers enough credit to assume they can understand simple English statements, and have doubts that "practically anyone" would have difficulty following the statement. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Insulting me and attempting to disparage my English reading comprehension skills...is that really necessary? (and could you explain how it fits into WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? Not exactly becoming behavior for an administrator who, by the very title and responsibilities attached to same, should know better. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You came to my user talk page with an uncivil tone. Do not be shocked when people reply in kind. Don't like it, fine - leave my talk page. Bye now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My comments contained no personal insults, merely matter of fact statements and asking for further clarification. Responding with insults and essentially telling someone they are incapable of parsing English is not replying "in kind", it's just responding with personal insults. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You arrived with an uncivil tone, demeaning my editing and revert reasons. If you choose to interpret my factual statements in response to your accusations of my editing as an insult, that's your interpretation. If you read the above dialog and honestly cannot see how I was responding in kind, take it to WP:ANI or WP:WQA or even WP:RFCC.
Let me make this simple for you. Leave my user talk page. Do not post here. Further postings will be reverted and ignored, as it's clearly not productive to discuss here further. If you feel further discussion is needed, see the links in my prior sentence and let any discussions develop in those forums. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ".co.uk" designation is basically equivalent of a ".com" site - the uk just indicates it's within the United Kingdom. For example, see commercial sites pepsi.co.uk , amazon.co.uk , or google.co.uk. All are commercial sites, they're just the official commercial site within the UK.
The problem with re-labelling the link is that if it's not an official website, then it shouldn't be included, per WP:EL and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. For US cities, WP:USCITIES makes clear that such links are not appropriate - unfortunately, WP:UKCITIES is a bit more vague, although it does state "External links should be added only rarely, and in accordance with the guidelines found in WP:EL. Consequently, this section should only rarely be found in most articles. In particular, the use of links as described in WP:SPAM should always be avoided." ... "Per WP:EL and WP:SPAM, be reluctant to add external links unless they are essential, and always restrict them to the External Links section, or to within an appropriately tagged reference."
Well, for starters, it looks like a good link. If you're looking at the article, you're possibly interested in the town, and the link provides more information about the town -- news stories, some photos, and so forth. There is also apparently a directory of businesses and so forth, which its not our job to provide but which certainly doesn't detract from the user's experience. Can you explain how this is not a useful link?
WP:EL doesn't discourage such links and WP:NOTREPOSITORY, which is about linkfarms, certainly doesn't. I don't know about the several links in that article that should be removed that you refer tom, but I'd caution being overzealous in removing links generally. The basic purpose of external links as I understand it is "Since you're interested in the subject of this article, here are some websites you might find of interest", and if the links meet that standard they should probably stay in (assuming they're not WP:ELNO links). Right? There are a lot of rules on Wikipedia but if they stand in the way of providing useful information they should be interpreted loosely or ignored, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The site doesn't meet any of the inclusion criteria of WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. Remember, Wikipedia's purpose is to provide an encyclopedic understanding of the subject of the article, not to be an internet directory or a tourism guide - and those same puposes apply to the external links. That's why WP:EL explicitly recommends DMOZ as a neutral directory site which can be linked as it contains ELs which would not themselves meet WP's inclusion criteria.
In the past, the community has generally discouraged geodomain type commercial sites, and several that have been repeatedly abused have landed themselves onto the blacklist. But, if you disagree, we can always take this one (and the related URLs that are also maintained by the parent site) over to WP:ELN so that the broader community can also discuss these links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict: :Actually, I looked at it, and there are a lot of sucky links in that article -- most of them, actually. I just think the one were' talking about is OK. I removed one which was purely a commercial site, and then after a bit more though removed these three which were possibly OK but basically were poor-quality:
Dynamica -- what is that?? Removed.
ekalltheway.co.uk -- meh. OK maybe. Removed.
eastkilbride.org.uk -- enh. It's OK I guess. Tiny bit of useful info. Removed.
The football team I'd keep, and the picture gallery.
This "dmoz" thing I've never heard of, and it looks great! It led me to the East Kilbride News, which I added. But yes I think you should add that link, by all means! Herostratus (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, edit conflict, to responding to your point about eastkilbride.co.uk in particular, well, it meets ELMAYBE #4, which is pretty broad: "Sites that... contain information about the subject of the article". Since it's a "maybe" I'd say leave it in. I don't really know about the geodomain and the community and all, but I know about the blacklist -- I ran into it recently, where I was prevented from sourcing material to a news site because somebody had mildly spammed it in 2007. I'm still waiting for relief on that one. I just fundamentally disagree with the whole rubric of "here is a useful resource which enhances the Wikipedia, but it is for-profit, and so it is in someone's interest to popularize it, and they have done so ("spammed"), so we must not use it". But it's not even that, here. It's that these types of sites have been spammed. If it's a case where the links aren't appropriate, that's different of course,
Anyway, it's not tourism site or a business directory, it's a news site. I wouldn't recommend being overly rigid about this sort of thing. But if you want to take to the noticeboard, that'd be fine.
The dmoz thing is great, but there is the problem that it lists a lot of things, and doesn't differentiate the good from the bad. So just including it is OK, but I'd prefer to use editorial judgement and select out the good sites and emphasize those. So it's not a panacea. Herostratus (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I referenced the type of link to show an established pattern of prior precedent about these types of links - not to claim this site should be blacklisted.
I just discovered a coincidence with User:Factoid, whom you blocked
So, in his latest protest to get unblocked,[7]Factiod (talk·contribs) comments that he was editing a version of the article that disappeared. I see what happened in the edit history, around 13:00 UTC on 29 Oct, where some major changes got reverted.
What's curious is that those major changes were being made by Ran kurosawa (talk·contribs). Ran's last edit was at 11:11, 29 October 2011, and it was a message to another user complaining about bias in the CueCat article. Factiod's first edit was at 12:37, 29 October 2011.
I've been pretty heavy in the AGF department with Factiod to this point. I've tried to engage him in discussion on the edits he's trying to make. I want to continue to make sure he's dealt with in good faith. I don't see anything greatly abusive that's been done with these two accounts; however, does it look like they are related? —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is curious ... for a product that is no longer manufactured, it would be an amazing coincidence if both Ran kurosawa (talk·contribs) as well as Factiod (talk·contribs) were writing books on the product in isolation from each other - as well as both making the same offer to forward several thousand pages to Wikipedia for review. At the least, I would suspect they are in some way working together, if not potentially the same person. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you deleting my link which is totally related to that topic and could give the good experience to the visitors. Ok check out the last external link of anchor text is "what is Google Panda/Farmer". why did you give an external link to that article while our article contains not only, what is Google Panda while it is also contains the solution for those who has been hit by the Panda update. ok compare the articles of both "me and the last external link what I mentioned above" and give me proper reason what we have not and what he have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadabiitr (talk • contribs) 20:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't the place to promote your personal website. The fact that another inappropriate site (now removed) also exists is not an excuse to add yet another inappropriate site. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked this user for 72 hours for edit warring on David Carr. Immediately upon returning, the editor is back to the same behavior. Can we block him again now or do we have to wait for him to violate 3RR again? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
howdie, and I hope I have finally found the right page here to query: why did you revert my edit of Bill Gates' page? I thought I was only reporting fact, ie that there had been accusations of discrimination. Those accusations were well documented and readers were fervently directed to check the sources of those accusations. I didn't intend to condone those accusations but felt that they were of significant gravity that they should at least be reported in as significant a resource as wikipedia. Please feel free to edit the report as much as you like, but I would feel much better about the situation if the info had not been removed completely. I genuinely feel that this topic would benefit from your concentrated attention, more so than almost anyone else. Do you think that you could present the topic of minority issues with regards to Bill Gates in a way that would be in keeping with wikipedia's high standards? I would love to see that, especially if you were able to keep the reference to the scholarship's entrance criteria. All the best and hoping to see your contributions with regard to this issue. Many thanks, Toby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tleave2000 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 7 November 2011
The problem is that the criticism is sourced to an op-ed piece - there's no editorial oversight over op-ed content and no way to distinguish true controversy from disgruntled person with an axe to grind. As a result, op-ed content fails Wikipedia's criteria to be a reliable source. If a reliable source can be found that documents any controversy, that would work. But the op-ed is no better than a open talk forum. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the citation templates are designed so that the "accessdate" value is only displayed if the "url" value is also used. It appears that the access date was only indended to show the last date that the url was confirmed to be working, not the last date that the citation source document was read. But, that's just my guess-work based on what I'm seeing. You might want to ask someone more familiar with the templates at either Template talk:Citation or at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have removed the bellsystemmemorial.org or bellsystemmemorial.com web links that originally were listed on the various related web sites, such as at&t Verizon, etc. The Bell System Memorial is a non-profit historical web site that at&t, Verizon, Bell Labs, and others use for reference. In fact, our web site receives between 800,000k to 900,000 unique visitors monthly, and we are contacted by the phone companies themselves for information that is in our historical archives. The Bell System Memorial was recognized by USA Today in 2003 as one of the "Hot Sites"; http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/hotsites/2003/2003-04-02-hotsites.htm
So, bottom line is, this site is relevant to be listed where it should be, and enhances the Wikipedia articles that it is associated with. Before arbitrarily remove sites without further clarification or investigation, why not ask?
I would like to further discuss this with you, so as to clarify any confusion that administrators at Wikipedia might have.
The link may be appropriate in the article for Bell System, it's not appropriate for every article related to the phone industry. Being non-profit is irrelevent. Being used by those phone companies is irrelevant, and the number of visitors is irrelevant. See WP:EL, and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY for further details. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your edit - I didn't see edits to your talk page. I'll leave those warnings to whomever reverted it (if it was you, feel free to leave a POLITE warning yourself - however, retaliating by performing vandalism yourself is a violation of WP:POINT, as well as WP:VANDAL, and will just result in your own account being blocked should it continue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And now you see his: [8] and [9]. I am under no obligation to not respond in a tit-for-tat manner but would appreciate it if an admin (someone who is expected to) left a warning - be it polite or not. And of course I do not plan on doing it again. He will see the difference and that is all I need to be satisfied. And reread WP:POINT since it is not applicable in this situation.Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, the wording of WP:POINT does not apply, I appologize for that. Although the title of it does ... Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Disrupting Wikipedia by intentionally vandalizing another page in an effort to make a point about a perceived wrong against you, is clear vandalism - and WP:VANDAL most certainly still applies. I am glad to see you have no intention of doing it again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No Need to apologize since I got your point (a little bit of word play for you) but I would appreciate it if you left a reminder for the other editor. I doubt I have the tact to do it in an acceptable tone. Cptnono (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still prefer to leave the warnings to the person who reverted it (personal preference - I'm not aware of any policy or guideline that dictates who should issue appropriate warnings) ... but, given your request above mentioned concerns for your ability to tactfully make the warning (understandable under the circumstances), I'll go ahead and issue the warning for you, mentioning that I've also warned you for comparable behavior. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like for you to explain me something. Why in the world did you delete my entry of Miadore.com, when a different moderator modified everything so the page was in line with Wikipedia's guidelines.
Due to the fact my mother tongue isn't English, my entry for Miadore.com wasn't in line with Wikipedia's guidelines and marked for speedy deletion. However, a Wikipedia moderator by the name of MikeWazowski, modified everything so it was in line with the guidelines.
Do explain me, why you considered to still delete this page?!
The article was deleted based upon two criteria: WP:CSD#A7 "An article about ... [an] organization ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.", as well as WP:CSD#G11 "Unambiguous advertising or promotion"
Also, as an administrator, I still have access to view the page history. From that, I can see that MikeWazowski's only edit to the page was to add the deletion tag. There had been another editor that had done some minor rewording, but was unable to resolve the fundamental problems with the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You keep reverting the listing for this person under Rome, New York. This subject has a pending page, and is well known for his anti-military projects. He meets the criteria for notable persons, in that he's gotten much media attention, most recently for claiming a rape victim who committed suicide wanted it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Michael_Crook
He's been cited in Details Magazine, Syracuse Post-Standard, Fox News Channel, Wired Magazine..and many more.
I see the article Michael Crook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been deleted multiple times for failing to meet WP:BIO, which was further endorsed by the community via an AfD. If a pending page eventually is able to overcome the issues that has resulted in the page being deleted in the past, then at that point he would be established as notable under Wikipedia guidelines. Until then, existing community consensus is that he is not notable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
I really wish vandals would get their information correct before insulting...me being white and Lutheran. Sheesh! It's so much you almost have to do the vandals jobs for them anymore. :) Anywho, thanks for the revert. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request
Could you semi-protect my talk page for, let's say, a month? I really don't get that much traffic from IP users and new users unless they are people like Donuthead. Thanks. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the 2 Unlimited page, you keep maliciously deleting a section that has everything to do with 2 Unlimited. The fan club and the author's book discusses 2 Unlimited. Are you working for the group or do you have some sort of Hitler complex? The subject matter is directly related to 2 Unlimited. Now stop deleting it.
Unlimitedtruths (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, read: WP:No personal attacks - you risk being blocked for making personal attacks against other editors.
Second, the fan club only existed from 1993 and 1996, it's simply not relevant to the article to list a defunct fanclub which has no lasting impact on the current structure of the group.
Third, you sole purpose for editing has been to promote Michael Crook-Delaney and his books - neither of which meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability (as clearly evidenced by the existing AfDs, the deletion review, and the repeatedly rejected submission at Article for creation).
To put it simply, the article is about 2 Unlimited, it is not about a defunct fanclub nor the former fan club president, and certainly should not be used as an avenue to advertise his books. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! You whine like a child. Can't take criticism, so you whine to ANI. You DO realize IP addresses are easy to come by, and your silly bans are worthless, right? 2 Unlimited existed between 1993 and 1996. So delete the whole article, then. Unless you have ulterior motives, of course.
Pointing out site policy is not whining - anyone who is serious about making useful collaborative improvements to Wikipedia should be willing to respect site policy. Threats to sockpuppet do not help your case. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barek, I saw your revert of the edit to the article on Switzerland by Trandana. I had read through the addition and thought it was pretty good. I was just going to add a "refimprove" template to the article and had left a note to the user about adding sources. Then I saw your revert. Would you be willing to reconsider the revert? Sunray (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search, and traced back at least part of the content to be a copy/paste from Prostitution in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). So, additional sources can be found there. However, if copying text directly from other articles, the edit summary should at least reference from which other article(s) the text is copied, so as to maintain the attribution history for the material. If that's done, I have no issue with someone else restoring it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow ... I hadn't been to The Tridge in years (or even to Midland for that matter), and had forgotten about it until you linked the article.
My thoughts on the article: many of the images appear redundant - some are nearly identical with only minor differences ... so I think some of those could be trimmed out.
The portion on tri-bridges around the world (and related external links) is probably best in its own article (perhaps a list article), as well as the other tri-bridges being linked in a new navbox for the bottom of the related articles. My reasoning is that it's information that otherwise would need to be replicated in each tri-bridge article. Better to have it in one location, makes maintaining it easier than having to sync multiple articles containing the same text.
Hi there,
I sure didn't mean to use this for personal promotion. One error on the page is calling the North Bay Review a newspaper. It is not. It is actually the newsletter of the Allyn Community Association. Can we get that fixed? I just wrote facts I know, and indeed the community events of Allyn are what make this place unique. Allyn Days draws 5,000 people every year. We also added a Geoduck festival last year that made big news across the state. It looks like it will be an annual event. Anyhow, I don't have a ton of time, but someone alerted me to the fact that when they googled North Bay Review, this was all they found and it wasn't correct. Until the website gets done, this is the only place people can learn about Allyn, so I'd love to see it more complete. I'm not an encylopedia writer. I'm a direct mail writer and a newsletter editor. Seems harmless to have at least more info there that is correct (which mine was) than a relatively puny incorrect listing as it was. Thanks for letting me know my edits weren't acceptable. And I appreciate any help you can give to fix it up a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.224.82 (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually familiar with Allyn Days (although it has been several years since I have been in the Allyn-Grapeview area). I can help with making corrections in the article, the only reason I removed it is the addition went into excessive details about the newsletter as well as listing multiple small and non-notable events.
Hello. It was brought to my attention that the above user has basically taken my username and rearranged it. I'm re-posting what I put on the page for Usernames for administrator attention:
It seems awfully coincidental that this recently registered user is connected to a block of IP addresses (which trace back to Chase Bank in Columbus, Ohio) while an unregistered user who also fits a block of IP addresses (from the same Chase Bank in Columbus) has a history of engaging in edit wars with myself and others on articles regarding Ohio State, Columbus and Cleveland.
I realize a bot has already added this user to a list, but I wanted to make sure a human being is aware of it. I saw on the history page of the above project page that you've already blocked the user for 31 hours (effective from yesterday), but if there is any further action that can be taken (i.e. having this user's name changed), I'd greatly appreciate it, as I'd rather not have people confusing me for this user. Thank you. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe Starck
The site i add, is not direct advertising, is something related to Philippe Starck, he is the designer of the Icon vallarta towers in puerto vallarta mexico.
http://www.luxurypvallarta.com/icon-vallarta/
if you take the time to please check that page, at the bottom of the page, is a description of Phillipe and links to his official website.
I did check the page before reverting. The brief material about him at the bottom of the page is already available from his official website (which itself is already linked from the article). The remainder of the url you added is pure promotional/advertising content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was stupid.
I know - tagging Eric was stupid, and I only realised my mistake after Huggle had tagged it. Tried to undo, but it said the article was already identicle to the previous version so I have no idea what happened there. Feel free to trout me. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd?00:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comment on your talk page after I posted to it, so I reversed my comment there. I had guessed it was a mistake, no harm done, so all is good. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My patience snapped on this; whilst I'm involved, this isn't a content dispute so I don't think I'm overstepping my authority. Thanks for all your reverts! GedUK12:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just putting in a word for User:ECLYPIA™, who you've just blocked indefinitely. This user account wasn't a vandalism only account. Rather someone who took ownership of an article, and then threw a tantrum when others removed their OR and POVs. I think they should get a second chance, after a period cooling off. For your consideration. --Escape Orbit(Talk)00:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
