User talk:Barek/Archive 2012

Patent
Patent
Patent number	Patent number text
Patent holder(s)	Patent holders text
Date invented	Date invented text
Application date	application date text
Patent date	patent date text
Country	country text
Region	region text
Other topics
	other topics text

This page is an archive of past discussions from User talk:Barek

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 Wikipedia user 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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_2012.

My talk page archives

• 2007	• 2008	• 2009
• 2010	• 2011	• 2012
• 2013	• 2014	• 2015
• 2016	• 2017	• 2018
• 2019	• 2020	• 2021
• 2022	• 2023	• 2024

infobox patent

Happy New Years, Barek!

I'm trying to get an infobox for patents per Stan's request but I'm having difficulties. I've got it in this sandbox and I began the docs in this sandbox. Is it because it is in my user space that it won't work? I'm getting template loop errors. Feel free to work in those sandboxes; I'm missing something and any help you can offer would be appreciated.

I was hoping to get a prototype fleshed out and then run it past Wiki Project Law for refining. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So there is no confusion, this all related to work on Abraham Lincoln's patent. I am the Stan mentioned. Thanks for the due diligence, Berean. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is a patent citation template, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only have cell phone access at the moment, but I c an look closer once I get home later this evening. --- Barek (talk) - 22:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you're seeing that's not working? It seems to work okay when I test it. Are you wanting to add some extra options that aren't working right? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! I don't know why this wasn't working for me but I'm happy to say that it is now (browser cache issue?). I thought that I was missing something major as nothing I was doing was correcting what I perceived as a problem. Wonderful! I'll continue with the documentation today. Thank you, Barek.

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have presented this at WP Project Law requesting their input.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry Devereux

We changed from the person infobox to the architect infobox. Not sure if we formatted it right, as we haven't used it before. The instructions are not pellucid. Please take a glance. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are blocking User:DirectFix...

...then AXMicro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should also be blocked because the DirectFix website lists AX Micro Solutions as the parent company and copyrighter of the webpage.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nvmd, you were so quick!Jasper Deng (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks~!

For reverting the wrongful accusation on my talk page, have a great weekend~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir

It is only proper that Brian Redban have a wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.111.80 (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

88.166.32.210

Since this guy obviously is gaming the system, why not just block or threaten to do so?Jasper Deng (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to reply earlier. The IP has gone silent ... if they start again, you may want to bring it up at WP:ANI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WallaWalla.com

Barek, why are you not allowing the added link wallawalla.com to thew Walla Walla WIKI page? This is a legitimate site for the Walla Walla valley for over 15 years. Please add this to the Wiki page for the site. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.147.208 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The links fail multiple Wikipedia guidelines and policies. See WP:ELNO, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and WP:USCITY. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1989 Celebration

I was on that ship and have video evidence of the whole incident. Why would you NOT want people to know about this? Dominic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominicbigd8 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOR, as well as WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think unsourced material is true. ... To show that all material added to Wikipedia is not original research, it must be possible to attribute it to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question."

Basically, you need to provide reliable sources that support your claims, personal experiences and claims are not sufficient. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Notable from Royal Oak

I see you removed a notable person (John Tenney) I added to the city of Royal Oak, Michigan and although I understand that he doesn't have his own Wikipedia page I feel that due to the amount of reliable and secondary sources that are available online he meets the criteria of being added. Thank you. Lawrence Peura 24.192.247.170 (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can add links to the reliable secondary sources as refs, that would establish notability, even without his having his own article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I'm new to all of this so, where would I specifically add the links? Thanks for responding. L.P. 24.192.247.170 (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can go to the article talk page, at talk:Royal Oak, Michigan, and add a section that mentions the person, and list the reliable third-party sources you have. I'll check back there later, and can use the data to re-add the material with sources for you ... or request additional sources if the links don't meet Wikipedia's guideline to be a reliable source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help I probably won't get to it until next week. Again, Thank you. L.P. 24.192.247.170 (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on the talk page ... but feel free to post a reminder here once you post over there ... so that I can get to it without a delay. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sock you blocked...

...should not get any talk page access from the start in the future. Speaking of Rocktired453 (talk · contribs) here. See the IP talk page's history.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eating Disorders Art

Thank you for help about not including image credits in captions on images. As you can see I'm new at this. On the other hand, I disagree on your edit stating that the images I uploaded do not illustrate the article where I included them. I am a psychologist and I didn't put these pieces of art just as decoration. They are pieces of art created by a patient with an Eating Disorder and in her work she portraits very realistic and private moments that reflect what not only her, but many people with eating disorders do. Maybe I should have added another caption that describes, binges for example, and also Art therapy as one of the treatments (as stated in the article too). I see that in one of you recent edits you edited the article about Dieting, and there is an image of someone measuring body weight on a scale, how is that not decorative, I would like to know. How is what I put different from that image? Please I would appreciate your guidance very much, and again, thank you. M.Theoktisto (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)M. Theoktisto, January 23, 2012[reply]

The image of the scale shows a person checking their weight and is directly located next to text which states that describes dieting to achieve or maintain a controlled weight, and that diets can be used to maintain a stable body weight - so it does illustrate that text. Alhtough, I will admit that the benefit of that image is borderline, and an argument could be made against it as well.

However, the images you were adding simple showed a person in proximity to food ... it's not clear from the images that the person has any type of disorder, although if you research the images that can be learned. Also, there's a problem with the copyright on those images ... the site from which they're taken clearly labels all of them as copyrighted material, and no indication is given on that website stating the images are available for re-use. Without explicit authorization, their use on Wikipedia is a copyright violation, so they also need to be removed for that reason. Simply claiming during upload that they have been released is not sufficient, there must be clear authorization given by the creator of the copyrighted works for us to be able to use them here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make sure the artist states in her website that the images are available for non-commercial and educational purposes. Would that help? Or what do I need or she needs to do exactly? She granted me permission personally but I understand that I need her written permission. Is just I couldn't find an option were this could be stated. Also I will write a more descriptive caption relating it to the content. Could you please let me know if you can help me out with this so I can make it right this time? Thank you very much for your quick response. M.Theoktisto (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)M.Theoktisto 24 January, 2012[reply]

There's a guide for how to submit documentation that shows authorization to use images. Unfortunately, I'll be away from my computer for a few hours, so I won't be able to locate and post the link until later today. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several (long) pages of information on images. Unfortunately, this can be very overwhelming; but it's necessary due to the complexity of copyright laws as well as being needed to cover all the potential image use issues that can potentially come up. The page that covers Wikipedia's image use policy can be found at WP:Image use policy.

The best way to clarify that material has been released under a free license is for the creator of the material to update the copyright notice on their website. Alternately, the guideline on using material where authorization has been received via a letter to release copyrighted content under a free license is:

If the copyright holder agrees to release the image under a free license such as the GFDL, please forward that letter to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" if it is not apparent from the source URL of the image. This ensures that the Wikipedia Foundation has a record of the license in case questions should arise at a later time.

When uploading, please clearly indicate in the summary below:

The original source of the image, including the copyright holder's name and, if applicable, the URL where you downloaded the image
A statement about the license status of the image (What license is it released under?)

The issue is how to relate the images to the article. What body of text do you believe these images illustrate in a way that helps a readers understanding of the text? I'm just not seeing it. As stated at WP:NOTGALLERY: "Wikipedia articles are not ... collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles." - if the image does not directly relate to the text in the article, you shouldn't be trying to "force" a link between the two by trying to use creative captions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rolestar link on Grinch

Hi. Thank you for the message. The Rolestar page is officially licensed with Universal to allow fans to engage with the movie and keep the movie interactive with fans around the world. I am hoping you will reconsider and add the link back to the section. Universal has been promoting the site itself on their Facebook page, etc...Hope this helps.

Thanks.

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnrstar (talk • contribs) 18:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my removal of the link had nothing to do with licensing; the reason for removal was that the link does not meet inclusion criteria in Wikipedia's external link guideline. As mentioned on the note to your user talk page, "Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EL/N discussion on playbillvault.com

Hi, Barek, thanks for the message. My apologies; I'm new here and still getting accustomed to content-building. It's easy to find pictures and videos of film actors (on IMDB, for instance) but that sort of material isn't always readily available for stage actors. Unfortunately I don't have access to any free-use pictures to upload to Wikipedia myself, but I've found them to be pretty readily available on the Playbill site. I thought others might be interested as well. --- Bwaylovernyc —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC). Bwaylovernyc (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim1138 & Berkeley Deserves Better

I see you blocked him. How should I have proceeded with this? I did not find any obvious solutions with help. Just curious, how did you find out about his post to my page? Thank you! Jim1138 (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have your talk page on my watch list, although I honestly can't recall why it's on my watchlist. I may have commented on your talk page at some point in the distant past ... whatever the reason, I saw their post - and when I looked at their other contributions, I realized they had made that same threat elsewhere as well - so I went straight to a block rather than a warning.

For future reference, the relevant policy for this is Wikipedia:No legal threats, which mentions that legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or an administrator. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hear me out

I think your policies are biased. But I don't know about you personally. Savetheday91 (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on no personal attacks is not "my" policy (ie: I did not write it nor do I own it); it's actually a Wikipedia site-wide policy which was developed by the Wikipedia community, and designed to help encourage collaborative editing. As stated on the first line: "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reported EHR warrior at EWN

Thought you might like to know. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're faster than me ... I was in the process of adding links for my own report. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

popmobile vs hitler in merceds

hi i found images on Hitler driving around in a Mercedes-Benz. On the page, it shows the Pope in a "popemobile" but I think you removed the image of Hitler as "not relevant to the company". My question is why is the Pope in a Mercedes relevant and Hitler not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arigoldberg (talk • contribs) 00:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove the popemobile too. I simply didn't see it; but I would also argue that the image is more about the passenger than the vehicle or company in that case as well.

Alternately, you could post the image to the article talk page and start a discussion, per the WP:BRD process. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mildred Seydell

Dear Barek: Please take a look. If you go to User_Talk:LadyofShalott, there are more details. The article has now turned into a "copyright violation investigation." I am frankly appalled. I replied here. If I can reach you with an e-mail (you can reach me via wikipedia e-mail), I can send you the two reports I got from Desktop Plagiarism checker. Sigh. If you would please take a look, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you and Madman have a dialog going on this. To be honest, while I have a basic understanding of copyright concerns, the references to Duplication Detectors and other technical analysis has me lost - I'm just not familiar with those investigation tools nor how to interpret their results. Hopefully, the reference that LadyofShalott gave you to contact Moonriddengirl will result in some assistance in getting this straightened out. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm trying. Stay in touch. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me

Hi! Good to see others apply the same technique - block 'm all!. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your opinion

Hello Barek!
I am writing to you per a suggestion by Orlady to get a neutral Admin's POV (I found you by clicking randomly on the Category:Wikipedia administrators page). Would you please look at the discussion at User_talk:Doncram#December_2011 and add your thoughts? In this case I feel that the block of a certain (not very popular) editor is excessive given the circumstances. I am happy to answer any questions or discuss the matter and understand should you choose to decline. Thank you & Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look, but as it appears to have quite a bit of history to it, it won't be until later tonight (maybe 6-12 hours from now). That said, I do need to give a couple disclaimers: the article that appears to be involved (Charles Coker Wilson) was already on my watchlist, although I haven't edited the article. I honestly can't recall why it was added to my watchlist, possibly due to something I may have read at some point on ANI, although I'm not sure. Also, I have had some interactions with the editor that appears to have been the other party in the dispute that resulted in the block (ie: SarekOfVulcan); those interactions have been minor and I don't feel they are significant enough to influence any neutrality on my part, but I wanted to be fully open and disclose those interactions (a scan through our talk pages can easily show the limited extent of much of that interaction). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fair, and I look forward to your thoughts on the matter. Sarek's been an Admin, so the number of other admins that have had no interaction with him is likely to be on the small side anyway. I think that everyone agrees that the length of Sarek's block doesn't have any bearing on Doncram's block, and that they both should have known better than their actions on that day. You might also want to check out User_talk:Markvs88#User_rights. Thanks again! Markvs88 (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the user talk page, their contribution history, the history of this incident, the block log, and the prior ANI discussion that resulted in the earlier long block ... I will be keeping the discussion on my watch list, but won't comment over there as yet. The problem is that I'm somewhat torn - the block is a higher escalation than I would have done; but thus far, their comments to their talk page seem more focused on justifying their violation of WP:EW. Before I can support an unblock request (with or without conditions), I need to see evidence that the user is willing to take ownership for their own actions and that they have a plan for how to disengage in the future before their editing might again escalate to the same conclusion in a content dispute.

While I think that BWilkins' unblock condition is too extreme, I do agree with the points brought up (here) and (here). The fundamental question in any unblock request is if the reviewer believes that the behavior is likely to recur. I would like to think it won't, but I'm not seeing evidence as yet that the user will take steps to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I respect your opinion. As (I think!) I've made clear I wouldn't be doing this if it weren't for the circumstances and that I have seen how these two editors have battled -- for years. I agree, the escalatory block policy makes sense and is a great tool, but in this case is excessive. I am not sure if you've checked the history on that page, you can see that the edit warring began... 5 minutes after creation. Well, you've already read the other points anyway, so I'll cut it short here except to point out that if Doncram should edit war again after (say) a 6 week or a 6 month block, what's the difference? If he doesn't change his behavior he's going to be blocked for life eventually. He's been blocked at least half a dozen times before, and those were all fair (including the 3 month one), but this is one isn't... at least to the non-admins that have voted on his page. Best & thanks again, Markvs88 (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I wouldn't have escalated to the 6 month block myself ... thinking about it now, I probably would have placed a 3 month block. However, once the block is in place, any question of unblocking or reduction of a block begins to hinge around the question of if the behavior is likely to recur. If I see evidence that they are taking ownership for their own actions and can demonstrate their respect for site policies by suggesting behavior changes or even unblock conditions that would reduce the likelihood of their disrupting Wikipedia again in the future - then I would support reducing the block, possibly even removing it. The problem is that, as yet, I'm not seeing that on their talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steganography

Hi, can you tell me in brief where is the external link in what I am adding? This is a journal paper on Steganography and very highly cited. I failed to understand why do you call it inappropriate? What I added was:

Steganography, cryptography and watermarking could be differentiated based on their objectives, requirements, and the relation to the carrier file. Ref {{cite journal |title=Digital Image Steganography: Survey and Analysis of Current Methods |journal=Signal Processing |last= Cheddad |first=Abbas |coauthors=Condell J; Curran K; McKevitt P |volume=90 |issue=3 |pages=727-752 |year=2010}

Although, there is no link in the above addition I would like to quote here "Wikipedia:External links" policy:

"Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, ..." --Cheddad (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what you are adding is:

A comparison between Steganography, Cryptography and Watermarking is provided in.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Digital Image Steganography: Survey and Analysis of Current Methods |journal=Signal Processing |last= Cheddad |first=Abbas |coauthors=Condell J; Curran K; McKevitt P |volume=90 |issue=3 |pages=727-752 |year=2010}}</ref>

While formatted as a ref, the structure is clear that this is used as an external link. The relevant guideline is WP:ELNO #6: "Links normally to be avoided ... #6 Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article"

Additionally, your username suggests that you have a conflict of interest in adding the link as it's the same as the primary author of the target document. Per WP:COI, it would be better if you brought up the link on the article talk page rather than adding it to the article yourself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Barek,

Thank you for the clarifications. I thought the topic is open for editing, a thing that features Wikipedia. I did not know that we needed to discuss this bit of addition prior to the posting. Anyhow, I drop it altogether, I don't want to bother you with it as it's not a big deal actually.

Good night! --Cheddad (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo my changes to the Royal Oak, MI page

People have a right to know, that the city is putting to death an innocent dog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottaronbloom (talk • contribs) 03:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition failed multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not the place to soapbox over perceived wrongs. If that's your goal, locate a community forum elsewhere or register your own website. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another why did you undo my changes

The information I added to Walmart International represents the UK division of Walmart (Asda) moving into new markets in the Middle East and the Channel Island. I don't see how that is an off subject tangent of Walmart International. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psion20 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your question supplies the answer. As you said, it's related to the Asda division specifically, and as such it belongs in the article for Asda - which you had already posted the material to that article as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've also replied at talk:Walmart where you had also posted a question about the removed content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raerev

Part of the extensive "clickbank" spam bank that Beetstra addressed to administrator's noticeboard a few days ago. I can provide more detail if you require. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I've been following it over at WT:WPSPAM - although I hadn't looked for update postings in a couple days, so will probably review to get caught back up again on recent evolution of the issue. Thanks for pointing me to the other noticeboard, I'll review there too. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of Flying

I am DESPERATELY trying to improve this article. I appreciate your input and deletion if you felt it was necessary. However, can you help me improve the article??? I am very knowledgeable about the subject. And the link you deleted is NOT a commercial site. It does not even accept donations. So why did you delete it? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE help me improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6617 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notice posted to your talk page already included the reasons and links to additional information at Wikipedia:External links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#LINK. Specifically from those pages, the link you added takingflight.us/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2 fails WP:ELNO #10 "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it is not appropriate to template experienced Wikipedia users - especially users attempting to engage in a dialogue. Rklawton (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The templates were entirely appropriate. The user joined Jan 25th, and has been repeatedly attempting to add the link since that time despite multiple editors removing it, including having added it to the entirely unrelated subject in the article at Taking Flight. Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to advertise or promote their website which fails policies and guidelines related to both EL and RS. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's had an account since the 25th. He's been editing longer than that. Please read WP:DTR. If you wish to be effective, then engage him personally. Rklawton (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the essay DTR, it's neither policy nor guideline, and I frequently ignore it - especially where it's both clear that the regular should know better and where the template is accurate in the message. As to their time on the project, I'll take your word for their having been here longer - although their actions and account log gave no indication of it.

As to engaging them, I replied to them on my talk page, and on the article talk page. Their own user talk page was redundant, already addressed in both the other locations - although I will concede that it would have been polite to provide a {{tb}} notice. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my questions and comments to you on my talk page. Should I have put them here instead. Or both. Thank You--Mt6617 (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also added some References and links on the talk page. Can you please review and see if they would be acceptable for use in the article? Thank you --Mt6617 (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Deen

Please dont vandalize my entries that contain factual data. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweatballs (talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are not appropriate. I see you've already been blocked by another admin; but for more information on why your edits are not appropriate, see WP:BLP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slander / Libel

You have set "tags" accusing www.takingflight.us as being a "spamming site". Please see the discussion here.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6617 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful of your claims of "slander/libel" - those words have very specific meanings, and your accusations are misdirected.

As to the subject, I've replied to the linked talkpage. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I have answered you there as well. My wording was specific, and I agree it is serious. You even accused me of placing the links for the purpose of raising search engine ratings (I had to look that one up) Words are words, and meaning is meaning. You advise me to be careful, I advise you of the same.--Mt6617 (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, back when you were adding the link, I accused you of linkspamming, because your actions met that definition. It may not have been your intent, but your actions were what I had based my warnings and comments upon. You have correctly pointed out that you stopped that behavior following my warnings, and at no point have I disputed that fact nor have I given any further warnings. You seem to be intent on beating a dead horse here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

beating a dead horse lol.... okay... that we can agree on. Have a good night.--Mt6617 (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of Flying, External Links, Forums

I have spent the last several days educating myself on the Wikipedia rules etc. You advised me that Forums are not allowed as acceptable External Links. You even advised/warned me of the following:

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Pteromerhanophobia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

However I found that is not the case. For example, please see[2]. Look at the External Links on this page. Please understand my intent here is not to challenge you, but to understand what the "rules" are. If you still plan on "banning" me for adding an important site to this article, is there a "higher authority" other than you that can review this? Please advise. Thank you. --Mt6617 (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barek is not responsible for deleting inappropriate links from every single article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a pretty big place. I am sure if you search widely enough you will find many examples of uneven enforcement of the external links policy. This is not a reason to spread improper links evenly across Wikipedia but rather to eliminate them where we find them. As has been done in this case. Rklawton has eliminated the improper forum link from the Anxiety article. As far as higher authority there is none. Wikipedia is a pretty decentralised editing environment. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clear explanation. Someone also explained it to me this wayArgument to avoid deletion discussion And the "similar" link has been removed from that article. Thank you again. --Mt6617 (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Dr.K has already answered the question. As mentioned above, Wikipedia is a pretty decentralized place. We have a large number of policies and guidelines that can be confusing at times, and due to the complexity we have some discussion boards where others in the community can discuss the application of those policies and guidelines if their application is disputed. In the case of external links, the main guideline can be found at WP:External links (there are other applicable policies and guidelines, but that's the primary one), and the main discussion board for external link discussions is at WP:External links/Noticeboard. But, before posting there, be sure to review WP:EL and understand the content guideline. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

As this involves a subject that you have recently been involved in, please see.... [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6617 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been closed - although everything I would have posted has already been mentioned by others, so I wouldn't have anything further to add to the discussion even if it were still open. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear Barek,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation. I've responded both via email and on the designated page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerbilling

If you get a chance, can you take a look at the IP vandalism that is being done to this article. I've been reverting on a daily basis, but the editor is insistant on adding unsourced contentious information about a living person.--Asher196 (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the page and added it to my watchlist. Luckily I was online when you posted; but for times when I'm not, you may get faster response by reporting these types of issues to either WP:RFPP or WP:BLPN. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Asher196 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asher, FWIW, I've added it to my watchlist, and I will revert and issue warnings, and then take it (appropriately) to WP:AIV when warranted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit

FYI, I reverted some miscreant and toxic babble. Best. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yea, that was a known sockpuppet/vandal. See WP:ANI#Another external link to Beatles music for background. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University of Arkansas at Little Rock crime data

I'm willing to discuss this matter and I'm glad you intervened when you did.

I'm being accused of negative bias, slander, undue weight, etc: panicky attempts by my detractors to put me in a bad light.

The facts (all sourced) are these: The University of Arkansas at Little Rock is having a serious, ongoing crime problem. The district that the university is located in is a very dangerous area. By putting these relevant, sourced facts into the Wikipedia article I believe that I am performing a public service by allowing uncensored access to correct information.

Unpleasant facts are still facts, regardless of how university boosters might feel about them.

I think the family of Patricia Guardado, the student murdered just off-campus last year, might agree with me on that.

I'm willing to add information about university and city efforts to clean up the district, but I can't work with people who think that deleting everything I type, as soon as I type it, is appropriate.

Thank you in advance for your assistance and your professionalism. Moonbeam 2012 (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wanting to discuss the article, the talk page at talk:University of Arkansas at Little Rock is the place for the discussion, not my user talk page. You can look through WP:BRD for an essay that describes a suggested process that works well for most users.

It's good to have reliable sources for content; but there also needs to be community consensus that the content meets other content policies and guidelines. As mentioned at WP:V, "because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". Again, the article talk page is the place to develop that consensus. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. However, as to WP doctrine and standards, who decides what "policies and guidelines...influence content" as you noted? What are the policies and guidelines for a WP article on a public, state-funded university? Who decides, and how does one get that information? Moonbeam 2012 (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is extremely decentralized; decisions are based on community consensus. For resolving content disputes, there are a set of tools described at WP:DR which has some suggestions on how to resolve disputes.

There are a large number of content policies and guidelines - the three core content policies are verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view; but there are others that the community has developed over time to support Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blu-ray

We saw that you were interested in Blu-ray or Hi-def Discs and were wondering if you would like to join the Blu-ray Project. We are a WikiProject dedicated to improving the articles completely or partly within the scope of Blu-ray.

NCISfan2 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wooktook

This guy's just messing around. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commission breakthrough spam

Gdaay Barek. Spam like DJalses's where it was ...knowledgenow.com, and variations of ...now.com is all part of the spam that Beetstra's XLinkBot (talk · contribs) and COIBot (talk · contribs) is battling, and with Beetstra and I feeding it more and more data as we analyse this shite. If you start to see further patterns, have a look at some of the data in User:XLinkBot/revertlist and see what else might match. To note that Beetstra and I have been also working on this at m:spam blacklist. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

I'm writing to figure out what was so bothersome about my edit of Nordic Walking. What instances were promotional and what where unsourced, because you reverted my edit back to FALSE information. Read through the history (of my edit) compare it to this one and contact me ASAP. The whole claim that "Nordic walking is defined as fitness walking with specially designed poles. It developed from an off-season ski-training activity known as ski walking, hill bounding or ski striding to become a way of exercising year-round. Ski walking and hill bounding with poles has been practiced for decades as dry land training for competitive Nordic skiers. Ski coaches saw the success of world class cross country skiers who used ski poles in the summer for ski walking and hill bounding and it became a staple of off-season Nordic ski training." is utterly false as there is concrete evidence that tells otherwise. Carefully read through the edit and instead of bluntly reverting it FIX IT to a more fitting state. The information provided is sufficient and sourced (if not tell me exactly what isn't). Further I can provide more sources to those health benefits, but they are benefits of Nordic Walking, not Exerstriding. Exerstriding and Nordic Walking are NOT the same thing. KMuuli (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only able to view and edit by phone at the moment; I'll re-review and respond more fully when I'm back to my regular computer (hopefully this evening). --- Barek (talk) - 18:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again I need to point out Barek, that you are very fast to take action against, but not for the improvement of the article. And that is deeply discouraging. When will I get an answer, since Natashadashenko is clearly interested only in reverting it (no answers thus far). Also when will a discussion start? When can I get in contact with a "competent" individual to finally correct the article into a fitting state for the public. Because it is bothersome also, that thus long it is still showing wrong information (in all honesty I'd completely remove the page from prying eyes until it can be fixed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMuuli (talk • contribs) 06:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the article talk page. I attempted to make more precise edits, and you reverted past those with no attempt at discussion of those edits. As you appear to have deemed me as not "competent" and choose to insult me, I see no value in attempts at discussion on my talk page. Do not post on this page again, as your edits here will be ignored and removed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	You may choose to ignore this, but as a token of my appreciation to your work for the "Nordic Walking" article I think this is an adequate token. Thank you. Hopefully, it helps some... KMuuli (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some credit for the author's

I agree with what you said on the Administrator's noticeboard, it's behind us. Now I have no clue on how to do this without sounding promotional, but seeing as the piece was written by Marko Kantaneva and the first fitness walking poles were produced by Tom Rutlin (who is basically also mentioned), I think they should be mentioned on the page in some manner. About the promotional wording and promotional claims, I am sure I can find an even better source for those benefits (as under the article's talk page there was some mention of people not believing it. KMuuli (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I'm moving the above post to the article talk page, so discussion can take place over there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy vandalism

A user who goes under his IP of 109.77.35.35, is vandalizing pages. His page should be taken down. You've even left a message on his page about vandalism and he still continued to do it for 7 more edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneInfo (talk • contribs) 17:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:AIV. Make sure he was warned. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of it for now. If the behavior recurs, various levels of progressive warnings are invaluable. They establish the intent and give notice and an opportunity to avoid any penalties. So document and warn. If that doesn't work, then the administrators are much more likely to deal with the problem, and to do it proportionally. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barek/userboxes/edits

This is mostly an FYI. The link to the edit count tool that you include in the above user box is dead. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I've updated the link to use https://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/ - which is basically the same tool, just maintained by a different user's account. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It appears on your userpage that you are using the "link=" argument when calling the infobox, which forces the infobox to use that "link=" value instead of the link https://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/ that is now in the infobox. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed on my end as well, then. I cut&pasted that from somewhere, originally, so there is at least one other person doing it that way. Somewhere. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hack

I too am wondering how my ip was hacked. It is wireless. How does that work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.146.171 (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT discussion

There is a discussion going on with regards to changes made to WP:POINT.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the Edit Wars on the Occupy Wall Street Article

Could you please prevent others from reverting too without a real summary? Thanks.

Mr. J. Lane (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a content dispute - for tips on resolving, see WP:DR. It may also be beneficial to read WP:BRD to get a better understanding of the generally recommended pattern for gaining consensus for an article content change. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing some of your edits, it may also be beneficial if you read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability listed at WP:V, as well as Wikipedia's policy regarding original research listed at WP:NOR. At the very least, even if you don't want to read the full policies, read the first paragraph or two of each one so that you can get a basic understanding of these core content policies. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was clearly a bluff... Check out the latest edits of the article.

Mr. J. Lane (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The Userpage Shield
		Thanks for the quick revert of my talk page fan. TeaDrinker (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

claims that my posts were advertising

Hey Barek, thanx for the feedback on my posts! sorry if they came across as i was "advertising". I feel my writings were very informative and unbiased. As it pertains to the post about personal shavers, well, it's a bit difficult not to appear as I'm not advertising. my aunt has been in the industry for many years and is considered to be the expert in the field. The posting I wrote going into great detail about the evolution of personal shavers. It just so happens hair erazor has been the driving force behind it.

So I must ask, would it be more valid if an unassociated person would have written the exact same posting? Because everything I wrote is fact, and any other person that would do the research would render out the same result. Maybe you could help me out tailoring the message? Because I feel it truly is imperative to educate the world that there is a whole other type of shaver. As for the images that I supplemented to the other pages, I only have access to my library. Not to mention full control of the rights of those images. Not to share various examples of shavers because you believe I'm "soapboxing" is unjust, simply because I have limited resources. That's almost like saying Gillette can't provide the an image of the original single-edge shaver the began the entire shaving industry.

thanx much, joey joey@monocre.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairerazor (talk • contribs) 08:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't have mattered who made that edit; it's worded too much like marketing material, and fails Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. As to the images, there were two issues: first, the captions were again written as marketing/advert material - and second, the images were redundant to existing images in that they don't expand a person's encyclopedic understanding of the subjects beyond what is provided by existing images. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so I see what you're getting at. And that wasn't really my objective, as much as describing the images in detail. Now, me having a background in brands and copyright, i thought i was being responsible my giving the appropriate name of the product shown.

So as it pertains to SHAVING, and the images of 3-forms of shaving (single razor, disposable razor and my supplement of electric razor): "Closeup of man using eRazor Fuzion electric shaver for facial hair removal", is wrong because I'm "advertising" by naming the electric shaver so... "Closeup of man using electric shaver for facial hair removal", would be appropriate?

Now, the one that I'm going to need your help with is my explanation of personal shavers. How am I supposed to describe the evolution of these shavers without naming the corresponding manufactures? Or are you suggesting that "comprehensive coverage" of the topic (or encyclopedic coverage as you put it) does not expand the readers understanding about the history, therefor irrelevant to anyone that is interested about learning more? Here's the example that I used to help me write about the topic:

In 1895, after several years of considering and rejecting possible inventions, Gillette suddenly had a brilliant idea while shaving one morning. It was an entirely new razor and blade that flashed in his mind—a razor with a safe, inexpensive, and disposable blade. It took six years for Gillette’s idea to evolve. And no surprise, Gillette is at it again, with the first new shaver developed since Procter & Gamble bought them in 2005. Schick traces its origins to the inventive U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Jacob Schick. On November 6, 1928, Colonel Jacob Schick patented the first electric razor...

It'd make for a very interesting read without any names, simply because you claim I'm marketing/advertising because of their brands. Anyway, I don't wish to bash your judgement. I only ask for you to help me be an effective wikipediaist.

thanx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairerazor (talk • contribs) 09:10, 15 March 2012‎

The sample text you used to model your addition is equally problematic - written in a non-neutral tone. After a quick search, I'm unable to find that example text in use on Wikipedia, although it is available on a large number of other websites. How other websites write their content is not a good example of how to write content for Wikipedia. Review our articles here, get an understanding of the writing styles. For more guidance, you can review Wikipedia's policy on writing from a neutral point of view. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

parody religion / Rebecca Black entry

Thank you for explaining what the issue was with the entry. It is not my intention to vandalize wikipedia. But to clear, does the "third party reliable source" refer to the source of the reference given? I will be monitoring this page for responses. (174.103.149.175 (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

From reviewing the material there, it does not appear to meet the criteria of being a reliable source. For third party views on the quality of a link, feel free to bring the link up for further discussion at WP:RSN - but first, I suggest reviewing WP:RS for explainations of how Wikipedia defines a reliable source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trajan Buia

Not having done a lot of redirects, I am sure I screwed this up. Please take a look. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Fixed.

Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith

I would like to know what was wrong with my post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.210.157 (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VANDAL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

help me out, here, pls..

What did you not like about my edits? Thanks.... David--Docimastic (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advert linkspam. Also, at WP:ELN#Second (or more) opinion sought, I suggested that the other links should also be removed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Investigation

Hi Barek. Did you start the sockpuppet investigation related to MG? I did not see it on the list of active investigations, but it might take time for a new investigation to come up. Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two current socks are obvious under the WP:DUCK test, so didn't see a need for those at this stage. But, I wanted to start tracking these in case other less obvious ones start appearing in the future. There's also a potential sock with Fitness4fun (talk · contribs); but that account is stale (from 2008), so any linking to that one and its related IPs from back then would only be on behavioral evidence. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling that Fitness4fun was a PR person working for MG shortly after his video came out. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly - but there were some IPs making closely related edits shortly after the edit by Fitness4fun was undone; and if you look at the edit summaries given by some of those IPs in this edit as well as this edit - then there's indications that the edits were done by Mitch and/or his current wife. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

The playboy cite is to a dead link, and BLP recommends speedy deletion of such. That is why I removed the information it cited until a cite is found to a live link. The IMBD link will cover the whole sentence. IMBD may be questionable to use on a BLP, but at least it is a live link.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting ... I hadn't noticed the deadlink until you mentioned it. Still, easy enough to resolve by using the WP:WBM (aka Internet Archive). I've restored and updated to use the working archived page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POI and Nathan

I have to say this: I am so glad to see I'm not the only one who hasn't leaped to the conclusion what Finch said at the end of POI was, by default, Reese's real name. (And you're a fellow west coaster!) I added a hidden note regarding making that assumption, in the hopes it will cut down on the repeated speculative edits. I also think there's a pony. --Drmargi (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Micah True

Barek, Please take a look. No issues, but your input would be appreciated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am (more or less) the sole editor of his new article. It has gotten nearly 18,000 views in the last 2 days. Lots of traffic. It needs a fresh set of eyes. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few of those views are mine ... I skimmed through it a couple times last night. I spotted a few minor wording and punctuation issues, but haven't had a chance to edit or to look closer at the refs used as yet. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few are mine, too. But it's an uncommonly popular article. The subject is getting a lot of play in the media, as you will notice. BTW, I thought that the Time Magazine reference to Bill Smith (fell runner) was somewhat interesting, as I think it likely that it came from the Wikipedia article. The two runners had a common thread: I wrote both of their articles. I then linked the articles. This united them from half a world away. But perhaps I overestimate my (our) importance. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

38,000 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that I would have more time by now, but the real-world is limiting my availability more than I expected. I'm only having a few minutes here and there, not enough for a deeper review. Hopefully others have given the review the article needed. Sorry to not be able to assist as yet.

I might be back to my normal time availability by the end of next week. If you're still looking for someone to help at that time, let me know. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Hi Barek

I see that you've changed the links to the few cruise ship entries that I added external links to.

I don't post very open to Wikipedia (although I've been a user for a long time), I just post the odd link that I think would be useful or edit an article I may read that I know has new information that I have come across.

I don't want to engage in a ping pong exercise with undoing the links (although I am a little upset that when I take the time to help others I am having to go through this procedure). So, perhaps you could help me with where I'm going wrong.

I've read the links that you've provided about external link guidelines but still can't figure out how I've broken them - I've looked on other ship pages and they appear to have similar external links.

Hopefully you can point me in the right direction.

Thanks for your help

Spaceship Earth (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the external link guideline at WP:EL, there are guidelines on what should be included in an external links section, what might be includable, and what shouldn't be included. The links you are adding fail at both the "yes" and the "Maybe" tests. In a nutshell - the links added do not expand on the encyclopedic understanding of the article subjects (ie: the individual ships).

Likewise, the policy at WP:NOT#REPOSITORY states that "Wikipedia is not ... [a] mere collections of external links or internet directories." ie: Just because a link exists, doesn't mean it should automatically be linked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

What was this for?--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm ... good question .... I don't recall doing it. I don't see any other posts in my recent edits that I don't recall ... my guess is that I clicked on the wrong row in my watchlist. I do apologize, and hope it didn't cause any problems. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't cause any problems. No big deal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

sorry about mucking about :) i wont do it again... nice profile pic btw :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.1.30 (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

school notability

Context. Don't you wish there was a template for this? In any case, I left a personalized message. According to User:Valfontis/Valfontis' law, it won't matter, though. tedder (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was also doing a message - but saw you had already done it after an edit conflict. I went ahead and tagged the sharedIP though ... the IP traces back to the company that owns the TV station which employs the person that is being added to the school article, so possible COI/self-promotion issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should have checked the IP. Good catch. (is it COI that I once worked in a building owned by their competitor?) tedder (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're saying that you worked for a third party that happened to be owned by the competitor - not an employee of the competitor themself. In which case, I would say not a COI. But, even if you're an ex-employee, the school article isn't about either company, so I wouldn't see it as a COI - although I can see how others could claim one on the specific material being edited. In those cases, I generally recommend staying at 1RR and using talk pages or DR tools to avoid being accused of a COI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. I worked for a company that leased space from a building owned by the competitor.

tedder (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I had re-edited my post a couple times, and lost some words. I meant to post:

I think you're saying that you worked for a third party that happened to be within a building that was owned by the competitor - not an employee of the competitor themself. In which case, I would say not a COI.

Which is what you're saying in the follow-up ... so I would say no COI. There is a potential for someone to question if there's a COI if you were editing the article about the competitor, particularly if you're adding/removing content related to relationships to those to whom they sub-lease. But as that's not their primary line of business, I would be surprised if that's even mentioned unless there has been a notable event (I haven't looked at that article myself to verify). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was still a tongue-in-cheek comment. Didn't mean you to take it seriously and give a full answer. tedder (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - funny thing is, I suspected that ... but I wasn't certain, and in case it was a serious question, I didn't want to offend you by shrugging it off. :-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should have removed my external links!

Hi Barek,

You removed a coupe of external links that I posted. The links added value to the pages and in many cases link to resources with more in-depth, more current information than the list of links already there. Furthermore, the links went to content that was completely topical.

Did you look at the pages before removing the links? Did you compare the value of the information the links provided to the other links?

The link for the wikipedia page Municipal Bonds went to www.learnbonds.com/municipal-bonds/

While you decided that link was not worth for inclusion, you did not remove the following two links: MuniMarket Pulse Podcast, The only podcast dedicated to Municipal Bond Market News and Commentary -> goes to a dead page List of German Municipal Dollar Gold Bonds -> goes to a page which has nothing to do with the content presented on the page, as the page is completely focused on US (dollar denominated) Municipal bonds

I feel that the links that I added were appropriate and added value. Would you consider changing your mind with regards to my changes?

Best regards,

Marc Prosser — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcWaring (talk • contribs) 23:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked at the links. They fail Wikipedia inclusion guidelines WP:EL, and were removed both per that guideline and per the policy at WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools." (Solon, the Lawmaker of Athens, d. 559 BC). DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, you can search archives to copy/paste quotes. If you would like to attempt a constructive discussion, feel free to start a thread at WP:ELN. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem is the sneering and contemptuous attitude that you reveal in your first sentence in the last post. (It was originally followed by others in similar vein, which you have deleted.) Yes. I can cut and paste quotations. I can also select appropriate ones, in this case one which you would do well to consider. I will return to this when I have time, probably this weekend. DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the real problem is that I let myself fall for your bait.

Your intent in which role you personally characterize me from that quote was obvious given our prior interaction, and you clarified that intent further in your most recent reply. I erroneously let myself reply in kind. My response should have been to point out that Wikipedia has a policy at WP:NPA. As you profess an appreciation of quotes I will provide this one from that policy: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines were build over years of discussion and community collaboration. If you disagree with those policies and guidelines, the appropriate path is to attempt to gain consensus that they should be changed, not to attack the person who pointed them out to you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barek,

Could you explain in plain language what I did wrong?

Best,

Marc Prosser

Would this be acceptable for an external link?

Hi Barek,

I read through most of the guidelines for external links.

Based on my understanding of the guidelines, I think the following would make a good external link:

101 Free Resources For Bond Investors http://www.learnbonds.com/101-free-resources-for-bond-investors/

For the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_(finance)

As I have a conflict of interest related to this page, could you let me know if this is an appropriate external link?

Barek - I am not a spammer, but I am trying to gain attention for my site by providing relevant resources to wikipedia users. I certainly don't know the ins and outs of wikipedia and my intention is not to violate the rules but, to work within them.

Thanks for your help,

Marc Prosser — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcWaring (talk • contribs) 19:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lurker Opinion: The link you post appears to a commercial site that does not show evidence of being an acceptable reliable source, so I do not think it would pass muster as a valid reference. The link you provide is certainly not a definitive element of bonds, in general, so it does not belong as a general external link in that or any other article. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? Who Dares Sings and Rachel

Please give me a explination for your accusations?

I have reported you to Wikipedia as I feel you are taking advantage of your editing privlages.

Please explian and do the mans thing and give a real explination instead of a ban which would be an admission of you been wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steph mot'd lulu (talk • contribs) 22:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were given clear warnings. Continuation of your disruptive editing will result in your account being blocked from editing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...

‎*92.40.228.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ...needs to lose his talk page access to stop the trolling for the rest of tonight.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP seems to have gone on to do other things; but I have it on my watch list. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TWT & GTA, vs. Assange

Thank you for suggesting, then that the current Assange page with the vid capture photo depicting the "World Tomorrow" banner, be immediately replaced with current vid capture pic of one with "The Julian Assange Show" banner. Also, why were you so busy editing the Wikipedia page for evangelist Garner Ted Armstrong recently, and the disambiguation pages for the World Tomorrow? It appeared to all of us here on my team your intention was to put one article down and out, deliberately making the original appear to be defunct - while elevating the newly created article of the identical Trademarked and Copyrighted broadcast name. Please feel free to explain your actions in these edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.153.92 (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above appears to be the same comment posted at talk:World Tomorrow. I've already responded over there, so won't duplicate my reply here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lurking

Hi Barek,

Do you mind my lurking, with occasional input? I put your talk page on my watch list at some point, for some undoubtedly good reason, and now I see the occasional post to which I feel compelled to respond. Please let me know if you want me to stop. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, feel free to continue watching and responding when you feel appropriate. I only ask people to stop posting to my talk page if/when their posts become disruptive and they refuse to change the nature of their posts to something more productive. FYI: I have a comment in the header of this talk page which even states "someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot respond to quickly is appreciated." - so people have fair warning that other users may respond to some questions/comments posted here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) What, lurkers? That's unpossible! tedder (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

moohoohahahahaha... Ebikeguy (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The World Tomorrow

Since you have now acknowleged the original programme is still in production, then immediately restore that original article to the number one position on the disambiguation page - if you are truly unbiased as to how these articles appear. The original article should retain the number one position it has held for many many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.189.5 (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated false accusations and misrepresentation of the facts is getting tiring. If you wish to engage in constructive discussion, I'm happy to engage you in that. If you wish to continue with these false accusations and misrepresentations of actions, I will no longer be responding to those attacks. Continued such disruptive and counter-productive behavior posted to this talk page will be reverted on sight, and will be reported. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The World Tomorrow Television and Radio Broadcast

Look Barek, Sladen et. al; It took you all nearly a MONTH to concede the fact the program is called "The Julian Assange Show" as of the second episode. You want to be right, and you ban or block anyone who you don't agree with, or who makes a correction to your edit. It seems like you must have the final say/edit -- otherwise you complain of sockpuppetry/and cry over being misrepresented. Then your M/O has been to place a "protection template" over the page so that noone can undo your edits -- because again you must have the final edit/word. Barek's talk page is replete with complaints of this very nature from others who are upset with his interference/bullying. The FACTS are -- you and Sladen COMBINED have made over 38, whatever you wish to call them -- "corrections" to this newly created article, and the others in question, since mid April. That is NOT a false or misrepresented claim. IT IS A FACT that anyone can verify with a cursory search of your history on these pages. So go right ahead and "REPORT"/"BAN"/"BLOCK" as you have done in the past, whenever you don't agree with a topic, or get your own way. The edit warring is from you, because you had to be proven "right" when someone else told you there was another title, and you did not wish to believe it -- even after given the proof you demanded. Your behavior in this matter has been disruptive to a work of God and its television and radio outreach programs of 70 plus years -- because I have had to deal with this mess personally.

The original Wikipedia page for The World Tomorrow, (Copyright & Trademark) was extant for years, and now has been deliberately regulated to a secondary position in a "disambiguation" page that was also freshly created in order for these sockpuppets to elevate the Assange show page of the same title to the number one position, which is evidenced in any internet search engine results page.

Restore the original page to the number one spot it held PRIOR to the Assange show of the same title, if you want to correct this situation. Immediately!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.209.225 (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this is my talk page - singular. Comments to me on my talk page, not to some imagined cabal that you feel is bent on opposing you. Attempting to lump my edits in with someone else is misleading, and only given as a lump number to give the artificial impression of it being a large number of edits that are spread over four articles.

It took over a month to add to the article because it took over a month for a reliable source supporting that claim to be presented. The blocks/bans/page protections have been issued by several admins, including myself, as a result of your repeated violations of Wikipedia policies, including WP:RS, WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:3RR, WP:NOR, WP:SOCK among the most common ones you have violated. You refuse to listen to useful advice given to you, and instead insist that your immagined way of how you want Wikipedia to work is how it does work.

You are the only one who thinks they own the articles, making unconditional demands, and who attempts to bully their edits into articles rather than working to establish a consensus.

Lastly, I have never, in any edit, moved the sequence of articles on the disambig (which exists per Wikipedia content guideline documented at WP:DISAMBIG). My only changes to that article have been to undo your wholesale blanking of entries you do not like. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We OWN the copyright and trademark, (and we own the copyright to the Garner Ted Armstrong photograph, as well). Fix the problem, or move on. (No one here has claimed ownership of the Wikipedia article, as you continue to misrepresent. We only assert that the article pertains to our ongoing current television production, which by the way you were reluctant to concede either).

A deliberate attempt was made to misrepresent our current production as being defunct as of 1994

I dont have the time or inclination to continue to deal with this bullshit any longer, so go ahead and "play editor" with each other any way you wish. (Oh and be sure to complain loudly and block this too - no one here is listening or cares). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superchargedone (talk • contribs) 03:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OWN. Enough said on that topic.

The provided image was a cell-phone photo of a copyrighted image, and failed to demonstrate it was clear of copyright concerns as outlined at the policy you were pointed towards; ie: WP:COPYVIO, which includes a section of "Information for copyright owners" which explains how to prove ownership. A person can claim anything they want on talk pages - it's not proof of ownership of copyright. It was the first of many times you ignored helpful advice, instead insisting that Wikipedia change its established policies, guidelines, and processes to meet your vision of how you wanted it to work.

I NEVER disputed that your program is in current production. The only edits to that article which I EVER made was to clarify that fact. Again, you misrepresent my actions - lumping me in with other editors on this site.

Goodbye. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of high-quality external links on Information Technology Categories

Dear Barek,

I have just noticed that you have removed a number of external links placed in specific network topics. While I understand the necessity of being strict with the links posted, however I must insist that these are high quality links with original content.

Furthermore, the site that contains the material (firewall.cx) is also recommended by Cisco Systems in their world academy program and also an offical CiscoPress partner!! How could it be possible that these are marked as 'spam links' and removed?

I kindly ask that you reconsider, visit and read the pages, to verify the quality information they contain.

Firewall.cx is one of the most valuable sites containing free information on these technologies, I hope you'll agree with me and allow us to share it with the rest of the wiki community.

Looking forward to your response.

Thank you. Chris Partsenidis 08:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpartsenidis (talk • contribs)

When I reviewed the links, a large number appeared to be product-specific how-to content, which is not appropriate on generic (non-product-specific) articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I found the comment very helpful. As it seems wikipedia favors, list of resources in the external links area, I was wondering if you had a any thoughts regarding the following page as an external link to the wikipedia Bond (finance) page. The external link page (DMOZ) is at least 6 months out of date. http://www.learnbonds.com/101-free-resources-for-bond-investors/

Best regards,

Marc Prosser — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcWaring (talk • contribs) 16:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To get additional comments, it would be better to either bring this up at talk:Bond (finance), or at the WP:External links noticeboard (but don't start the same discussion at both). Those locations are likely to get more traffic than what my talk page would get, so you're likely to get comments from more users, which can better establish community consensus. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show

Thanks for the pointer — I didn't notice that the content had been moved. I've changed the target to what you suggested; if I made a mistake, please fix it. I've not protected to keep other people from fixing the redirect, but to keep other people from recreating the article. Nyttend (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

external link removal?

Barek, I was wondering why you removed the external link on the Breckenridge Ski Resort wiki page but kept the SnowGuide.org/3dskimaps links?

I'm wondering why you flagged this as "multiarticle linkspam"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.92.184 (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's linkspam added to multiple articles. See WP:EL, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and WP:LINKSPAM. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I'm wondering how the link can fit within the guidelines since I feel it would provide additional factual information about the resorts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.92.184 (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

College of DuPage

Recently you removed a paragraph about the Homeland Security Education Center from the College of DuPage article. You cited WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:EL. I am requesting a more specific reason for your deletion. Cheers. Dkriegls (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I did not intend to purge the full paragraph. I've corrected that mistake now, sorry about the inconvenience. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Np. I figured it was something like that. Cheers. Dkriegls (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Architect

Dear Barek:

I noticed that on the College of DuPage page that you deleted the names of the architects from the Homeland Security Education Center paragraph that I added. In the three paragraphs that precede the paragraph I added, the names of the architects are listed for all three projects. Please explain.

Many thanks.

Yours,

Tommy Baines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy Baines (talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the additional problematic wording. I've cleaned up the section further per WP:NPOVand WP:ADVERT. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the Zeibekiko article

And you prefer having a totally wrong totally biased article on Wikipedia? Just because somebody wrote something on a book, this doesn't mean he is right! Jesus! If that was working like this then we would all be lost by now! Anyway, I have numerous sources to cite my article. I didn't know this was needed to tell an objective truth... And do you want to say that all the stuff I wrote got lost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.102.246 (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V, "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia." By all means, if you have published reliable sources to support your addition, feel free use them to support re-adding your content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After digging further, I found there was an earlier version of the text that was supported by consensus. I've restored that version, which appears more inline with your version, but was written with a much better encyclopedic style. --- Barek (talk) - 15:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zeibekiko

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I've answered there. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spam ?

The Schlesinger link is not spam. see the discussions at User talk:Cntras and User talk:RU123 and User talk:Alexf. These are "deep links" and are explicitly permitted. (WP:ELNO#13 "If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.") Rjensen (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the links added by User talk:RU123, some are appropriate, while others, like the one at the Schlesinger article is not. In this specific case, see WP:ELNO #9 "Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds". This specific link is not appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotection

Thanks for semi-protecting my page! Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing my external link edit

Dear Barek,

I am a new user & do not know that I cannot add inappropriate links under "external link" section in 4 articles recently. I did that because I see other similar links there.

Now I've learned & will not do it again. In fact, I also help to remove the spam link under the same article. I hope you will not ban me or cause my website to be penalize.

From this moment onwards, I will contribute for the good of Wikipedia. TQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zianit (talk • contribs) 23:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - no penalizing ... blocks/bans/blacklistings are only done when there's repeated persistent abuse of Wikipedia or its community - and even then, there are routes to appeal those actions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, Barek. Thank you kindly for your quick cleanup work here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. FYI: I have no preference on the indents (although edit warring over indent formatting is a WP:LAME candidate) ... my main issue is over the repeated restoration of the personal attacks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think there are sound arguments to be made in support of both indenting conventions. I don't think there are any to be made in support of personal attacks, though! :-) —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbleheads in popular culture edits

Hi, I added two references to bobbleheads which had been featured in popular TV shows (The Bachelorette and Outsourced), but you deleted them. Can you please tell me why? They were documented, accurate, and extremely relevent to the topic. Shreveportcom (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, the bobbleheads in the show were trivial, a passing occurrence with no lasting impact within the episode - it wasn't important to the story, or the show, just an incidental gift. Second, there were no reliable sources that even attempted to imply the incidental gifts had any lasting impact to the story-line being presented. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I respectfully disagree, the gift was a significant part of the show, since it was the contestant's attempt to further himself in the game, and he did in fact do that in the episode. This was written about on many entertainment blogs and mainstream sites the next day, here is one example from the Chicago Sun Times: http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/television/12453667-421/bobblehead-beguiles-bachelorette.html Shreveportcom (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous entry lacked a reliable source, the addition of a news story as a reference would support the addition. If you choose to restore the content, be sure to include one of the news sources. The simplest format to add a ref after the text is with the format: <ref>[http://link.here (space) Description of link]</ref> ... although more descriptive formatting guidance can be found at WP:CITE. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

let's give the users useful links they would not otherwise find

The goal is to provide useful links not otherwise known to users, and UNZ makes a major contribution here. I believe ELYES 3.1.3 ; that overrides 4.9, which is not an absolute ("normally"). Furthermore, the link follows the advice at 1.4: "In the "External links" section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site." I think ELNO 4.9 was targeted at Google, Yahoo, Bing, and RSS and has to be stretched beyond usefulness to cover UNZ. Rjensen (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the links added by the user are appropriate, and I have not removed those. However, ELNO #9 does apply to the links which I removed. 1.4 is not applicable, as the multiple links wouldn't be appropriate either. ELYES #3 is likewise not applicable here as the search result is not to information, but to search results. The search results may be useful tools for locating specific results that themselves could be used as sources. If you disagree, feel free to bring it up at WP:ELN. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors disagree with your highly restrictive interpretation as shown by the talk page at User talk:RU123. You misread ELNO#9 which is about google-type links. What we have here is an UNZ a cover page that is NOT a search page listing but rather a prepackaged guide to resources on UNZ. ELNO#9 therefore does not apply. Rjensen (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of RU123 at best shows no-consensus as yet on the links. In prior community discussions at ELN, talk:EL, and ANI about ELNO#9, it has been applied to digital archive search results as well, not just general web search engines. As I said, feel free to bring up these specific links at an appropriate noticeboard such as WP:ELN. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ELNO #9 applies to searches using google/yahoo/Bing and not to prepared sites at a specific website, which is explicitly allowed at WP:ELPOINTS: "In the "External links" section... try to find an appropriate linking page within the site." The links are all to " an appropriate linking page within the site." Rjensen (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the centralized discussion that I've repeatedly suggested. You can find it at WP:ELN#Links to digital archives at unz.org. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Internet TV HIstory

ok with all due respect:

I am still trying to fig all this kid chartroom stuff out. here at the wiki. its a real hassle much worse than the old days yahoo chat etc...... and way too complicated in todays modern INTERNET world... the wiki format etc...

just my opinion.....

encyclopedia Britannica and the world book encyclopedia, handle history and investigation much differently, they do not let a bunch of random folks and kids, just get in there and switch things all around anytime they feel like it etc........ (like someone we know)

you are NOT ALLOWED to switch around ANYTHING...at the Smithsonian...etc.......or the museum of natural history etc. not at at all.

thats WHY most reliable and credible co's and sites are now starting to view wiki as a "KIDDIE" encyclopedia website etc. as opposed to a real encyclopedia company / website like EB or one of their competitors.

it is my opinion, that the post I posted in my edits of the history should be allowed to FLY. it is the correct timeline of events for Internet TV...... ( i was TRYING to edit correctly ..it IS complicated, and SHOULD be handled differently)

so that being said... if wiki is a real encyclopedia the real history timeline SHOULD be reported, complete with all my links..... and if it is not, that makes the encyclopedia entry INCOMPLETE. (as it currently sets) and not accurate enough for true research etc.

a kiddie encyclopedia in my opinion. the true facts are NOT there etc.

this is your website / encyclopedia, not mine. you all mods and anyone else run it.. I sure cannot run it correctly. ( i tried all dang nite) and I have informed you all of Factual / correct and TRUE Historic Information in this Internet TV/History field/subject.... is not the ANNENBERG school of COMMUNICATION at USC. not credible enough for the wiki? http://www.ojr.org/ojr/workplace/1060223904.php or the daytona newspaper themselves? or my 2000/WHO-is data for DaytonaBeach-Live ? >> ALL Proceeding Mr Greece 2005?

if the encyclopedia does not display the historic correct and true, information, after KNOWING it is there, is this not a crime? in International encyclopedia land?

Im not bucking for publicity.... I just PROCEED the greek dude by 5 whole YEARS with two MORE on top of that in Radio and webcams. in albq.... its just a FACT. that the wiki cannot seem to get correct somehow.....

it is a big hassle etc.

well like I said.. I told you of the mishap and mis information that you currently had there. and I TRIED to rectify the situation, but have QUIT. I MADE the history.. it is the wiki's job to report it correctly, not mine. if they do not do this correctly, or MISS some important FACTS along the way, it is just NOT my skrew up, is it? after all, the wiki WAS informed of the CORRECT FACTS in this field/complete with the source links etc...........go do your homework....... the facts will speak, for themselves etc....facts are facts..... I proceed 2005 Greek dude by 5 whole years.....verifiable by the network solutions who-is database daytona's newspaper, and the ANNENBERG school of COMMUNICATION: at USC .....BABY !!!! and on TOP of that..... almost the whole chapter # 8, in the book, Darknet, about me and my Internet TV stations.....( go read it, you will be informed etc) its just NOT my fault....if the wiki cannot seem to report the facts correctly to the world..... LOTS of OTHER folks out there in the world,,, HAVE also seen my VERY CREDIBLE and Verifiable source links and know Im the first.... everyone knows it. except the wiki.....grin this is just not my fault eh???? do what you have to do....delete a WHOLE History section of a subject....grin...if that is the only way you can rectify this situation......... its so EASY a KID could do it...but I cannot and it seems that the all mighty wiki cannot either....grin

and you WONDER WHY......TONS, of Credible companies, and people, nowdays, do not take wiki seriously anymore....its basically a KIDS history lesson...... all watered down and a bit confused here and there...all over the place...... so UN professional in my opinion.

Im done with y-all NOW. you have the correct info.. use it if you want... or delete a whole history section. if thats the only resolution you can come up with etc. but I will NOT allow you to report the FALSE facts....... TheRaven >> PROCEEDS the GREEK 2005 dude...by 5 whole YEARS. if there IS someone ELSE, that might proceed me,,, I wait for your Proof. and will step DOWN, if some one PROVES to me, that someone else was doing Internet TV BEFORE ME........

but I do not think you can....

im getting better at this...soon I will be able to search on my own....grin

TheRaven is OUT. you all at the wiki can proceed how you want to on this... its not my biss or fault...if the wiki does not report the correct facts, or incomplete facts, to their public. other folks will get it correct...and already have. history is history.............even the Allmighty wiki cannot CHANGE history grin ( I've ALREADY made it etc)

it is what it is....grin you report it or not....your choice.

>>> (WHEN) ,,,,you all "FINALLY" FIX this mess up..... I want that site and that HISTORY, LOCKED. to require admin permission to edit it.... until someone else BUMPS me out of the # 1 SLOT. if this ever happens. I will gladly step into the # 2 position etc....

is the wiki going to REPORT the CORRECT history ? or not? at wiki/Internet television/history page..... time will tell. is THIS the correct Tildy thingy????

Frank810z (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, much of your added content was an advertisement for your site, despite your claims of not wanting publicity. That fails Wikiepdia's neutral point of view policy. The majority of the sources provided were primary sources (self published or raw data that requires synthesis to apply an interpretation).

However, as a result of the overwhelming wall-of-advertising-text, you are correct that I (and the several other editors that reverted your advert content) appear to have overlooked the one actual third-party reliable source which you provided ( http://web.archive.org/web/20020605121408/http://daytonabeach-live.com/ ). I'll mention that link over at the article talk page, so that those who are more active on the article can also review it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You have provided evidence that you existed in the 2000-2001 timeframe, but none of your sources say you were first (likewise, none of the Greek site sources appear to say that either). If you have a reliable source that states you were first, please provide it - otherwise, any interpretation of the data is synthesis on the part of the person viewing that data. Due to a lack at this time of any sources confirming a first, the section should be omitted rather than being a commercial listing of sites. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ogdoadic Tradition

You removed the tag based on your judgement in good faith, however misguided. I will respect that. I will not edit war over it and will turn to proposed deletion. Still, it's blatantly obvious to anyone with even passing knowledge of the subject that the article is pure promotional fluff for a tiny group's pseudohistory. It has nothing to do with notability. It is a classic example of a G11 in the occult topic area. Furthermore, it's also a classic example of a G3 in the subject, since it is an obvious psuedohistory. It clearly fulfills two criteria for immediate deletion, based on the history of speedy deletion and deletion discussions in the topic area. In the future, please defer to other administrators that know enough of the topic to make the call. Thanks for your time and understanding! --71.186.132.208 (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My removal of the {{db-spam}} speedy deletion tag was appropriate. This is not a judgement on the article, only that the G11 speedy deletion criteria was not met in this instance. The speedy criteria are limited in scope for good reason. When a speedy tag is declined, the next course of action is to then escalate to either a WP:PROD or WP:AFD process, which I see you've now done. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G11 says: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" and "anything can be promoted, including ... a point of view". The page unquestionably fits that criteria. It is a pseudohistory from a fringe group that only serves the purpose of promoting that group's narrative requiring a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. G3 says "This includes blatant and obvious misinformation". The page also clearly fits that criteria. Pseudohistory is blatant and obvious misinformation. If you disagree please explain why. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was only tagged with G11 - and was not written in a promotional tone, it was written from a NPOV. End of story. It is now tagged with a {{prod}} tag, and will be going through that process. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles need not take a promotional tone to fit G11. They merely need be promotional in purpose to qualify for speedy deletion. You also seem to misunderstand what NPOV is about. NPOV is presenting topics in line with mainstream views and what sources report. Unqualified psuedohistory cannot be NPOV by its very nature, no matter how nicely worded it is. An administrator should already know these things. Please take the time necessary to familiarize yourself with deletion and content policy. If you doubt me, feel free to ask some long term administrators how close or far to the mark I am. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you question my ability to interpret policy, the place to take such concerns is WP:ANI. I've now done that for you at WP:ANI#Ogdoadic Tradition. Feel free to contribute to the discussion on the noticeboard. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I appreciate the neutral way in which you presented the matter, earnestly. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help with other language Wiki's

Hello Barek,

I've lately been busy getting translations for the Wikipedia article Nordic Walking and have seen much success as well, currently the Estonian, Finnish and Turkish Wiki's have all accepted the same articles translated version. However I just today ran into trouble with the German Wiki. After editing the article, providing info about it in the talk page (although in English) and putting it up for a review the answer I got was this: "(Änderung 104042828 von KMuuli wurde rückgängig gemacht. Babelfish-Unfall )" Now a simple google translate will tell you that it was reversed, but as to why I have no clue, since "Bablefish-accident" leaves me boggled. I was hoping you may be able to shed some light on this matter. Thank you again Barek, hope you will get time to have a look at this soonest. Your fellow (wannabe) editor, KMuuli (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

NB! I linked the article here http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Walking

I don't have any contacts in de.wikipedia, and I don't speak or write German myself, so not sure if there's really anything I can do to assist. For editors from en.wikipedia that do edit over there, you could see if you can find any editors with current activity from their accounts who have listed themselves at the category: Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the German Wikipedia. Hopefully, someone from that list can assist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. KMuuli (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Barek. Returning with the same problem yet again. After all this time I've gotten nowhere. I understand that things do not move the fastest in Wikipedia as there is no "headman" to turn to, but after 9 days, shouldn't some response have come from the editor who reverted my edit? I have seen one minor change made to the article (the author's picture is now up), but that's it. Since I don't know where to turn to and you're the only one that gives good information about these things, what should my next move be? Because while this can take time, it shouldn't go on indefinitely. Thanking you in advance, KMuuli (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The Raven (Harold Kionka)

Barek, Thank you for helping me clean up The Raven article so the warning flags could get removed. If I can find some better references, I may try to add some things back in. Is the Internet Archive a referenceable site? It verifies that things existed when I say they did. Once again, thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnetbuild (talk • contribs) 12:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Archive can be used as a reference; but if it's being used to reference text, the archive must actually state what is being referenced. The most common use of that site is to reference text that is no longer available on the original site due to the age of the material. But, there are limitations on the appropriate use of the archive as a source.

Per WP:RS, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." ... this is further clarified at WP:INDEPENDENT, "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter."

The archive is a copy of a primary source (ie: something that is written, published, commissioned, etc by the subject). While primary sources can be used for general data about the subject, they are not good sources for claims about accomplishments of the subject as they are effectively self-published statements.

Also, a common mistake with the archive is to try to support original research (see WP:NOR which defines original research for Wikipedia purposes).

Lastly, links to the archive shouldn't be used just to link to an example of the site. It's better to use a news story that supports the text, rather than linking just for the sake of an example. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barek - I am going to re-add The Raven section into the history and provide more references. If I mess it up, let me know. Or if you have any suggestions. I'm not being a jerk. Like you, I want to make sure this is done the right way so that all readers are comfortable with it and can trust the information. Once again - thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnetbuild (talk • contribs) 13:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The revised text is much more neutral. I haven't reviewed all the sources yet; but from an initial scan I see two issues: the bold text for "The Raven" should be removed, and the amazon link should be removed (as a substitute, just listing the ISBN number of the book is the standard method for linking books). It will be several hours before I'll have time to look closer. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi

what are the components of health apprisal..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.253 (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your question with some context? I do not understand the question. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gu Kailai

go watch some news, or just search those things online, and see if they are fake or not. go ahead. i challenge you. i just reverted your change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6B:6B90:ECA7:3C23:6540:5B08 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 June 2012‎

Two issues: first, no sources were provided. The burden is on you to provide reliable sources for claims made in BLP articles, not on me. Second, the content isn't even about the subject of the article, but about secondary persons. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge you to point out any "unreliable" sources

your vague excuse is lame. therefore, i challenge you to "provide" anything that was not based on facts. for claims made in BLP articles, not on me. i have listed all the sources, did you check them out one by one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6B:6B90:ECA7:3C23:6540:5B08 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 June 2012‎

Your additions to Gu Kailai were entirely unsourced - nothing to be checked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if you think that way, why don't you just go read other wikipedia articles? or just search those things that i just wrote online, and see if they are fake or real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6B:6B90:ECA7:3C23:6540:5B08 (talk • contribs) 2:20, 20 June 2012‎

Again, the burden is on you to provide reliable sources for BLP related content. If you do not provide sources for the BLP claims, the content must be removed per Wikipedia policy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Content

I am wondering why the links I uploaded got deleted. I added links to videos to show what the CIWS weapon system is like in action during a TDU shoot which is a live exercise fire. I own the rights to these videos because I was in charge of coordinating the TDU shoot and recorded these videos on my own cameras. Please let me know what I am violating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munchito696 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EEnE's BPS

Hi, Barek! You might remember me as "the guy who posted the Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show page twice". Well, I was wondering, do You think this could "pass the test"?: Here. :) All the Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 13:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to have the same issues as previously - namely, a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. With the number attempts that have been made by yourself and others which have all resulted in the same consensus, I'm doubting the sources exist to make it possible to meet the notability threshold. But, if you want a broader review by others, the best venue would be at WP:DRV (ie: Wikipedia Deletion Review). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your name was mentioned

In an editor assistance request here. As you can see, I responded to the user who lodged the complaint. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice - it looks to be resolved without my involvement, so I won't add to the discussion at this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links to blogs

I have warned User talk:Raywood that posting external links to his blog is a conflict of interest. He has chosen to remove my warning from his talk page. You should be aware of the warning so that if you have to pursue sanctions you will be able to point out the warning to anyone deciding whether a sanction should be imposed. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your T.S. Resort Edit

I planned on deleting this communication between us after you read it; because it has become my experience that these talk page coversations somehow find themselves on Google. I have read your reply, and I hope to become a better editor from reading it. Thanks for your prompt reply.Pocketthis (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I revert most removals of discussions from my talk page (except for the rare uncivil post, rant, or vandalism which I remove on site), letting a bot eventually archive them after a week or so; but, I don't think there's anything in our discussion that I would need to reference for others, so I won't restore at this time.

Incidentally, this page won't directly appear in Google searches, because my user page, talk page, and talk page archives are all using the "noindex" tag which Google recognizes to be a page that's not to be stored in their search index (using the tag also results in my pages being in the category Category:Noindexed pages). Unfortunately, there are mirror sites out there that are third parties that copy text from all Wikipedia pages - and some of those don't bother copying the "noindex" tag ... so even though this page doesn't show in Google searches, the text from it can show on searches via those mirror sites. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

qualify linkspam

Hi Barek,

page: home insurance subheading: In the United Kingdom citation: http://www.homeprotect.co.uk/home-insurance-articles.aspx

Just noticed that you have edited out reference to an article database that may be of use to the UK readership, although the article repository in on a commercial domain I see that the majority of the linked citations are also commercial in nature and offer either out dated and/or poor and irrelevant content.

In addition to the point above, qualifying this resource as "linkspam" as part of my addition to the UK information about specialist and non standard home insurance and the issues that concern UK home owner (please reference the ABI/Government flood risk home insurance policy http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16794696 and the nature of UK specialist insurance for households as just one of the myriad of problems that UK home owner have to contend with) and you will see that this issue amongst others is a concern to the UK home owner and the home insurance industry.

As HomeProtect are one of the only providers that is dedicated to providing home insurance information and advice along with providing home insurance policies to some of the hardest to insure properties and individuals in the UK, I feel that our re-inclusion into the UK home insurance sub section would add to Wikipedia and not detract from the quality of the resource.

Many thanks for your time. Bobn1970 (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bobn1970 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobn1970 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker). Bobn1970, The few edits you have on Wikipedia all involve adding links(see Linkspam to homeprotect.co.uk. First, the sites main purpose is to sell online home insurance. secondly, the link you have added are to a general search results page for articles. Lastly, the articles are essentially blogs, doesn't seem to have any sources and has no editorial oversight (see WP:RS). In addition, homeprotect.co.uk fails a multitude of Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. --Hu12 (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love Systems

Hello, I am trying to upload a wikipedia page to the love systems company. The original was deleted due to what I believe was notability (from what i read). I added notable sites to the reference list and combined the Owners info with it since everything he does is based on the company. I talked to the original admin that deleted and said we needed more notability. I have added that and it was speedy deleted. I would like some information as to why and what I can do to help have this not happen again. Thank you for your time (Greggcas (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I would suggest drafting the new article in userspace, then using the process listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review to request community review of the revised content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that and thank you. But may I ask why YOU specifically deleted the content then? Just trying to grasp from your point of view. I will do that to have user reviews but I'd rather have an answer from the admin that did it as well. Thank you (Greggcas (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

It appeared to be a merged version of material that was significantly identical to content that was already deleted via AfD from the two articles Nick Savoy and Love Systems, so the deletion was done per Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria of WP:CSD#G4. If there were significant new refs provided, please identify those specifically at the deletion review request so that people can quickly spot them to help support that this is a significant improvement over the old content. If you need me to restore and move the deleted content into your user-space, please let me know. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So would I reupload it and then place indications of what has been changed? Sorry Still having some trouble doing everything correctly. Want to go by the book but would just like to know if you could lead me in the right direction as to where i would post and identify the upgrades of the page. Also the old admin i talked to...deleted the conversations we had on his page as to him stating to merge the two together so that it would be more notable. Can i go about grabbing that as a reference? Thanks (Greggcas (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

At WP:DELREV, you can post your arguments for why the prior AfDs do not apply to the latest version (ie: identify the new sources that have been added, and any other improvements that you believe resolve concerns raised during the prior AfD). There are two basic ways to make the revision available for review: you can place it in your userspace (ie: a page something like User:Greggcas/Love Systems - which I just now see you've already created, so I'm guessing you don't need the deleted version moved there unless there are differences - let me know if needed, I can undelete your version of the article and move it to that page for you); this gives you a place to make any additional changes before posting the request to WP:DELREV. Alternately, if the deleted version is ready as-is, you can post to WP:DELREV and then ask me to do a {{TempUndelete}} - basically meaning the page would be undeleted at Love Systems, but hidden behind a template message telling people that to review the deleted content, click the "history" tab, then they can view the prior version of the page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have done what is necessary to complete the request for a tempundelete. I have posted on the wp:delrev to request for a temp undelete. If there is anything i am missing..i apologize in advance. Thank you for your help (Greggcas (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I've restored the page and its history, so that others can review the material at the deletion review. Please note, deletion reviews will be kept open for at least seven days to give everyone time to review and comment, at the end of that time, a non-involved admin will review the discussion to determine if a consensus has formed, or if more time is needed for the discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Berek. Sadly the user above is a sock puppet of Handrem and gamed the system in this case and has been blocked. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice ... I actually already knew what was going on, due to some of the pages on my watchlist; but thanks for making certain I hadn't missed that info. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring has reignited?

I see that someone has been desperately overdoing the nordic walking article again. I just wanted to know if there was anyway I could help and also have some curiosity about the new picture. (I don't know what sort of license to choose, the picture was made available for use to me in this article, by it's owner.) Also this article vandalizing seems to be occurring in other languages as well.KMuuli (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't really looked at the pictures much until this weekend, but noticed there are problems with the licensing on both the old one and the new one.

On the new one, I noticed that the license was tagged as "fair use", but that requires that it cannot be reasonably replaced. Since the value in the image is demonstrating nordic walking (the subject doing the example being secondary), an example of nordic walking could be reasonably replaced by photgraphing anyone providing an example - so it didn't meet the requirements of WP:NFCC #1.

On the old image, it appears that it was deleted because it was marked as having been released into the public domain - but the website clearly marks it as copyrighted.

To replace it with the same image, that image would need to be released under a free-use license (here's a list of licenses compatible with Wikipedia's copyright terms: WP:ICT/FL). I haven't worked a lot with image copyrights; but I noticed today that our copyright policy (listed at WP:IUP) states, "Note that images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia, or only for non-commercial or educational use, or under a license that doesn't allow for the creation of modified/derived works, are unsuitable." and that "Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use."

If you can receive authorization from the owner of the image to allow it to be used under one of the free licenses; then the image could be uploaded as "This is a free work", "This file was given to me by the owner", then email the permissions received to permissions-en@wikimedia.org (or, alternately, ask the owner to list on their website that the image has been released under a free license). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you didn't see their latest...

This blocked user has just altered your reply to their unblock request. More talk page fun! Shearonink (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Reverted and locked. DMacks (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sunglasses

The IP troll is back after your protection expired. Mind to reprotect? Thought I take the shortcut.TMCk (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little more help with the picture...

Hello again Barek. I'm sorry for being a nuisance, but I'm still having trouble with that picture. So I got it uploaded, under a copyright license no less, however I had no idea that I could only use it in the English Wiki. So I talked to Marko and he released the picture to the public-domain, so it's now free to use (except for commercial purposes). The problem is I don't know how to delete the old picture so that I could upload it to the commons instead and use it in all language wiki's. My question is, where should I write to get the picture deleted (Note: I already attached a deletion caption under the picture). Thank you again and best wishes. KMuuli (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the license listed at http://www.markokantaneva.com/40 doesn't meet the copyright requirements to be usable on Wikipedia. Our image use policy (at WP:IUP) specifically states that "Note that images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia, or only for non-commercial or educational use, or under a license that doesn't allow for the creation of modified/derived works, are unsuitable."

I can understand why Marko wouldn't be willing to release the image for commercial purposes; but unfortunately, that restriction prevents it from being compatible with the licenses under which Wikipedia operates.

Keep in mind though, I'm not an expert on the copyright issues. I normally try to avoid them, because the legal restrictions and requirements are confusing and give me headaches. People more familiar with the copyright concerns can be found at WP:IMAGEHELP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting all my culture.

Instead of deleting the culture I've added and more, why not relocate my information to an Arts and Culture section? I see you haven't removed that from the Pittsburgh page even though you were doing edits on the Pittsburgh page. It actually made me think I was crazy to refresh the page and see everything I added removed immediately. Sorry for feeling defensive, but I just felt the page was lacking that information for people looking for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChateauOfADoubt (talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:EL, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and WP:USCITY#External links - those links simply didn't belong on Wikipedia. The fact that Wikipedia is a big place and other pages are yet to be cleaned up doesn't automatically allow for the right to ignore site policies. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you determine that an event is notable? ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's guideline on notability can be found at WP:N. Several of the annual events also appear to fail that criteria and should be removed as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you understand my point. I feel targeted by you for this. It is as though you are just undoing my contributions, rather than "cleaning up" the problems you explain them as. ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Hi Chateau. I understand that you may be hurt and angry by what is happening, but I assure you that Barek is one of Wikipedia's finest editors. If he deletes something, it is because the language was really and truly in violation of clear Wikipedia policy. I encourage you to read the information at the links he posted for you so you can understand what is expected of Wikipedia editors in these areas. I would be happy to help you if you have any questions that you would like to ask a third party. Chin up, and happy editing, Ebikeguy (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ebikeguy, It's not that I believe that what Barek deleted wasn't in violation with policy, it's that Barek has been deleting my contributions stating "violation" and leaving things in the same section that I had not added that are also of the same quality and notability. Had Barek cleaned up all the events that Barek understands to be "not notable," I would have felt frustrated at having my contribution deleted, but I would not have felt targeted. You say "happy editing" but I've found that it's impossible to edit without having my edits removed immediately. It is incredibly discouraging, and I've found that this is an experience common among non-admin trying to edit entries on wikipedia. I spent a lot of time trying to clean up those contributions and remove them of "external links" which I hadn't previously realized were so discouraged. I whittled them down until they seemed agreeable. Again, I would have been frustrated if my edits were removed along with other offending material, but when just my edits are removed when there still exists other offending material in the very same section, that is when I feel I am being targeted, rather than someone is truly cleaning up a section based on policy. ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chateau, I continued this discussion on your talk page. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barek, can you please explain or perhaps direct me to a more pointed section on determining notability? I have tried to understand, have waited to see which other events you remove (have you removed others? it doesn't seem to have changed) and the events section of the Notability page seems to refer only to one time occurrences, such as news stories. ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my wife and I had gone out of town for a few days, and just got back home. Still haven't unpacked, so will be a while before I can comment more. I see that Ebikeguy was assisting you, hopefully he was able to clarify the notability and city article questions you were asking. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ebikeguy was unable to help me, so I came back and asked that question: "can you please explain or perhaps direct me to a more pointed section on determining notability? I have tried to understand, have waited to see which other events you remove (have you removed others? it doesn't seem to have changed) and the events section of the Notability page seems to refer only to one time occurrences, such as news stories." You seem to have a clear understanding of this, so I was hoping you could point me to the section that I must be missing. ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline on events has a pretty high bar set at WP:INDEPTH; it's better to use the simpler summary listed at WP:USCITIES#Arts and culture. The main goal is to avoid trivial or promotional listings by avoiding unsourced original research. This can best be resolved if an event is sourced to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, that are worded with a neutral point of view. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. That was the amount of explanation I was hoping for. ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced material

You could just let me post stuff that is true and that is sourced instead of playing an all knowing genius that you are not. I will keep posting. And you can keep deleting them all you want, but they are true so I don't know what your problem is and why you sit and your computer all day and try to verify boring stuff like this, but whatever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superawesomeamazingdude (talk • contribs) 03:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits here and here were completely unsourced and are at best dubious and in need of sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibions

Hi Barek!

An editor continues to add the identical content from the charade on the Reptile article, however, this time onto the Skink article. I believe that this editor is the same editor, as the previous ones that have been blocked for this disruption. What should be done next? Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you've fixed the issue. Thank you,

-- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as an obvious sockpuppet account. If these continue, should probably bring it up at WP:ANI so that additional admins can be aware of the sock/vandal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a page for everything, it seems.

Even a page to express how I had felt. Handy! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers :) ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Indeed- and several Wikipedians were more than patient with you, based on the discussion above. I bet you are thankful for that! I'm glad the Teahouse was also a helpful resource for you; it's amazing how much unpaid time people like Barek put into maintaining hundreds or thousands of pages. Some additions are helpful, some are absurd and/or vandalism, some are from new users who don't understand why Wikipedia has high standards- yet it remains the only noncommercial entry in the top 100 websites. Your help is certainly appreciated to continue balancing quality and quantity. tedder (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All-Inclusive Resort Page

Hi Barek,

I greatly appreciate your reply. It was certainly not my intention to break any guidelines or rules. I thought that my point made a contribution to the subject of All-Inclusive resorts. I note that the first reference leads to an All Inclusive specialist website (something similar to myself). I was wondering why this source is deemed credible but my post is not?

I hope to hear from you and to see how I can make a contribution without breaking any rules.

PeteWarsop (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the other problematic source that was already in there. I've updated it to use a site that would meet Wikipedia's guideline of beeing a reliable source. Thank you for pointing it out. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

... for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. That was a first for me... I feel like a real Wikipedian now! Cheers,MsFionnuala (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional medicines and drugs

Hi, with regard to this edit - it occurs to me that it probably is a fictional medicine or drug, so out of all the places it was spammed, that's probably the best one for it - although I doubt the OP would appreciate the irony... Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, it failed WP:EL regardless ... I say fortunately because I wouldn't want to get dragged into a debate on if it's fictional or not ... those discussions can get ugly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Janeane Garofalo page

Hi Barek, I saw you had removed my addition to the Television section, saying this was already on the Television list at the bottom of the page. But all the comments on the Television section are listed at the bottom too. Which is the concept for listing shows on the Television section and/or in the Television list?

Regards. German — Preceding unsigned comment added by German AC (talk • contribs) 02:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Entertainment career" career section should primarily contain notable career achievements, there's no need to mention every part played in that section - especially non-recurring guest appearances. The more detailed trivia of all appearances then appears in the "Television" section near the bottom of the page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaminade High School

Chaminade High School (Mineola, NY) - Only John Culinane is not a significant alumnus of Chaminade High School; Geoff Biosi and Robert Flanders are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Built1905 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your post is a bit garbled, but based on your other edits I'm guessing you believe that I was mistaken in removing some people from the list of "Notable alumni" in the Chaminade High School article.

Wikipedia has a guideline on how to establish that a person meets the threshold of being notable, the guideline can be found at WP:BIO. Basically, what are needed are third-party reliable sources that can demonstrate that a person can be deemed notable under the WP:BIO guideline. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

...for the revert. :) Steven Walling • talk 04:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdfunding

Hi Barek,

I have tried to add a Nordic crowdfunding site (invesdor) to the crowdfunding -page, but every time I have done this, you have removed it. I find it odd that there is a list of Us-based crowdfunding sites but no Europeans. What is the reason that European (especially Nordic sites) can not be added? To me this strongly discredits the quality of wikipedia as I now realise that only US based content is preferred.

Br, Lasse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makellas (talk • contribs) 04:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Makellas. I reviewed the history of edits at Crowd funding to refresh my memory on the addition. In my case, the one time that I removed the link was because it violated Wikipedia's guideline on external links (see WP:EL) as well as failing to meet Wikipedia's guideline on notability (see WP:CORP). The link was also removed by other editors for the same reasons. I'm sorry that you feel this has anything to do with a country bias. I see you attempted to create an article at Invesdor, but as it also did not meet the notability guideline of WP:CORP, it was also deleted.

For help on creating the article, another editor posted a welcome message on your talk page with some helpful links. Please see Wikipedia:Your first article as well as utilizing Wikipedia:New contributors' help page if you have any questions on creating the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPI Question

Re this edit, I created the SPI with Twinkle and did not get any errors. What should I have done differently/what is needed to fix it? VQuakr (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... I re-checked, my mistake, it is listed - sorry for any confusion ... I found the listing in a collapsed block at WP:SPI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for deleting page update

Hi Barek,

I noticed that you removed my recent edit on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Moore_%26_Co. Can you please explain what the issue was? I was asked to update this page with the details but I'm not sure what violation I caused.

I can see your comment stating "rv copyvio - obvious cut/paste" but this is not true. I spent 3hrs editing the document so it contained the correct markup for the information I was supplying. If you could let me know how I can resolve this issue that would be great.

Thanks, Rich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardreddy (talk • contribs) 16:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barek, I think Rich is correct here. I have reverted Benjamin Moore & Co. back to the state the Rich had edited it. I agree that some of it sounds promotional, but some of it clearly is not as independent sources are being brought such as the awards section. The solution to this is not to simply delete everything. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see this was resolved via the ANI discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hey

I added my site because I thought my site had valuable content for the readers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outsource infotech (talk • contribs) 16:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The added links were to advertisements for your business. Wikipedia isn't the place to post those types of links, it's considered spamming and is not appropriate in an encyclopedia project. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fairness. Wikipedia needs more moderators like you.

Thank you for the suggest for the correct page to contact Jimbo Wales on his Talk Page about the abusive language of an Administrator. Presently another Administrator is talking of an indefinite ban against me in retaliation. Please review. Thank you. University Internet Cafe Booth 6 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be kidding me.......

Barek, What was your reason for editing the Street Crime Unit page. I worked in the unit prior to its expansion and certainly know more about this units history than the author of the wiki page. The facts on the Diallo shooting for starters is entirely false. One does not need a Phd. in history or english literature to know that the facts that were attested to at trial, pre trial and grand jury by the officer's are the true facts of the case. The facts written in this wiki article are false and present a negative misguided opinion of the officers involved. Since I am an expert on this unit and having worked in the unit, having extensive knowledge of how the new officers were chosen for the unit leading to its failure, I believe your deletion of my comments only represents a typical whitewash of facts often replicated by today's left wing media. Your dishonesty in your message to me is quite discouraging. This is exactly why this web site is losing credibility. The Street Crime Unit page as currently seen is a joke. it does not paint the true picture of what really happened to the unit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RetiredNYPDLT (talk • contribs) 16:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like a list of 100 contacts who also worked in the unit and can attest to my comments as true, just email me and I will gladly supply you them. I doubt you will do this....anyone with any sense of journalistic integrity would agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RetiredNYPDLT (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi. I saw this discussion and left some thoughts on your talk page. Please have a look. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I see that the controversy section itself is also unsourced; as it's clearly disputed, I've removed it until reliable third-party sources can be found to better document and write that section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Berek..you can't get more reliable than witnessing first hand and being part of the creation of the unit. Witnessing the events as they unfolded first hand and having direct first hand priveleged information is about the best you can get. If someone were to write a book on this unit, I would be a source for them to interview and publish. So we skipped the middle-man here. No publishing company...straight from the hoarses mouth. I guess when my book is published I can have somebody else log on and post my quotes! Make sense to you? See how easy it is to skew the system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RetiredNYPDLT (talk • contribs) 19:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All we have right now is your first-hand accounts, which are not verifiable to a third-party reliable source. If you have links to news article, or court documents, those could be used as a source. However, even then the addition to the article should use a neutral point of view, without the commentary and puffery that comprised a large portion of the initial addition to the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angry cat

(Nice pic; seems like I have to be careful writing to you... :-)

Dear Admin, I saw you blocking a user for his bad behaviour on another user's talk page. (Indeed one of the times that you reverted him/her I was trying to do the same but could not, due to "edit conflict"; you were faster than me. :-)

After this introduction regarding how I met you, I would like to kindly request your attention to a totally different issue: I made a comment on Talk: Angelokastro (Corfu) yesterday. A user who claimed "authorship" of the article (is it possible?) accused me of personal attack and removed -erased even the word "nationalist" from the title section when it was not used together with any user name or nationality- part of my discussion and filled my own talk page with warnings. BTW also threw a threat on me to send me to the ANI. (Can we threaten other users?) I had put some maintenance tags on the article itself and as I am not very experienced -if I recall correctly it was the first time I used those gadgets- on the use of these instruments maybe I may have exaggerated the number and the said user deleted all of them calling me a tagbomber. (Shouldn't s/he remove only the irrelevant tags and leave the other/s?) And then s/he rushed to edit the article. (Must have taken seriously part of my critism. Then why did s/he not tell me I was right in something?) S/he was in such a hurry that although s/he seems to be an experienced contributor even gave a wrong wikilink during his/her "bombing" in my page. I wrote about this attitude to another admin but maybe he (Mr Cline) is offline or too busy. Would you kindly do me the favour of looking into this issue and telling me your sincere opinion (do not avoid to critisize me also if you feel like that)? All the best. --E4024 (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The person I blocked was engaged in posting unambiguous personal attacks on user talk pages, after receiving multiple warnings to stop, so it's a different situation than the current one. For this one, from an initial glance it appears that the other person over-reacted by posting first a "level 3" warning, then a 3RR warning over his blanking of a talk page discussion where there is nothing that I would classify as a clear personal attack.

I know nothing of the subject myself (and, to be blunt, have no interest in it - sorry), so I am not an appropriate person to attempt to mediate on the subject. As to the behavior, I suggest seeking assistance through WP:Teahouse, which can also assist with learning more about Wikipedia. Another option could be reporting the user at WP:WQA, although I think the Teahouse would be a better first step. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barek, please do not be misled by the rantings of E4024. After he canvassed another admin who did not reply, and did some WP:FORUMSHOPPING, he comes here with his half-truths to besmirch my reputation. This editor, as a cursory look at his talkpage history reveals specialises in personal attacks, and his favourite one is calling editors he doesn't agree with "nationalists". There are at least four NPA warnings on his talkpage, this is the reason I gave him a level 3 NPA warning this time. This is the edit at the talkpage of the article and its edit summary: I understand hate speech is free but exposing it is not. What a pity..., insinuating that I try to suppress his exposé of hate speech. He added at the talkpage:

Is not there a little too much anti-Turkish nationalist POV in this article? "Killing, looting, pillaging and burning" claimed on the Ottoman Turks without using a reliable source. I prefer local editors from the area eliminate those POVs themselves; because the references bring into mind hate speech and do not present a very positive impression about the authors...

i.e. using emotional blackmail that he would associate the authors with hate speech if they did not erase that sentence. I don't know about you, since you used the derogatory term "blanking" regarding my reversions of E4024's "hate speech" comments, but I find this kind of approach to editing deeply offensive and disruptive. And all for what? For looting and killing during war in medieval times? That was the accepted order of the day back then, not only from the Ottomans but from the Christians as well. So what is E4024 babbling about "hate speech" and why does he resort to personal attacks to suppress common descriptions of medieval warfare? Calling editors you don't agree with "nationalists" and insinuating that they are contributors to "hate speech", especially when they are absolutely innocent, are blockable offences. Done for trivial reasons, repeatedly and to suppress common historical facts, even more so. I have refrained from filing an ANI report for this editor but my patience has limits and I am not helped by his practice of contacting admins pretending he is the victim. Meanwhile he still has not replied to me at the talkpage of the article preferring instead to forum shop and canvass admins, parading his falsehoods about me. To his credit, E4024 has made some progress from his early days of unabashed personal attacks. I even commented favourably about him recently. I just don't know what triggered him this time. But whatever it was I hope he resumes his civility quest and does not abandon it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edit in "Incest in popular culture"

I've made a proposal on the Talk page in Incest in popular culture. I imagine you'll oppose the proposal, but it's not clear why, so please explain on that Talk page?144.90.43.187 (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the talk page. Per WP:RS#Self-published sources (online and paper), forums are simply not reliable sources for supporting claims in articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Walking page under attack yet again

Hi Barek,

After staying away from Wikipedia for awhile I noticed that the english nordic walking page has been largely edited again. Edited in the wrong kind of way. While I do agree with adding events, none of them are really "important" events and are more commercial then significant. Also, INFO the organization, leads to a .net page. I don't know if that is okay or not, since as I know it should be .org .edu or .gov. The reason I can't do this my-self is because I'm currently away on holiday and don't have an older version of the article. And I am simply not knowledgeable enough to do it from the history or how to revert properly.

Thanks in advance,

KMuuli (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been away for several days myself. I have access to a PC again (I hate trying to edit from my cell phone), but will be a couple more days at least until I'm back to editing very much again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barek,

KMuuli arguments are wrong. Nowaday, there are a non-competitive Nordic Walking and a Competitive Nordic Walking. I have only written links of World Championship, etc. The problem is that some walkers don't admit the competitive Nordic Walking and KMuuli is one of them. I think that wikipedia admit information, but no sectarism.

Best Regards,

Mark --Walkingpole7 (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern grey squirrel article edit

Hey there, please help. You removed my edit because I didn't back up my claims. I understand why, but I'm not technical enough to do that. I was hoping by giving you 2 articles I found about squirrels bites psi, verses lots of dogs you can see that it's true and maybe help me reference it. At least the sentance about squirrels having an incredible bite should stay even if the rest goes. The stuff about falling from trees is something I have witnessed personally and so can't be referenced. But I feel the squirrel page needs this info about just how incredibly powerful a squirrels bite is, 7000 psi. I don't know html and find wiki daunting to say the least. Although many of my words are already in the wiki page for the Eastern Grey from way back, I just never registered. And each time my isp move my ip. Now I'm a stranger, or the edit rules changed over the last 5 years. I never referenced anything but usually others did it for me. lol

Here are the links i found

Squirrels; http://www.enature.com/expert/expert_show_question.asp?questionID=21837

Dogs; http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081204103540AApHyrN

According to that a squirrels bite is 28 times more powerful in term of pounds-per-square-inch or psi, either terminology works the same. In fact there are very few animal which come close to a squirrel. Even a T-Rex was estimated to have 15'000 psi. A squirrel having near 1/2 of that is a worthy addition to the article imho. Feel free to rephrase anything I said or make your own edit to the article using this info with the correct referencing thing so it sticks.

Regards, Anthony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.217.183 (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the links, as well as for your understanding. I'm in the middle of something else at the moment; but will be able to pull the relevant data out of the refs and add the info to the article later tonight (might be several hours, but I promise I'll get to it). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot prior plans to go out tonight; but I'll read the refs and add it in the morning, unless someone else gets to it before me.

Re: your comment about needing a ref ... unquestioned information or common knowledge generally doesn't need to be sourced, but in this edit you were adding quanitifiable statistics, which should have a source to support those claims. More on this can be found at WP:FULLCITE. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a nimute

Could you look at these contribs - looks like a lack of understanding or maybe something more serious. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely odd behavior. I looked and didn't see any obvious connection between the article subjects, so it may just be good faith attempts by someone struggling to understand some of the complexities of meeting WP:N. They've been invited to the WP:TEAHOUSE, but don't appear to have looked into that resource for assistance as yet. We can only point them to assistance, but can't force them to pursue it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it was the payday loans spam that made me wonder I guess. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Art Institute of Salt Lake City

So it's unsourced becasue I know the guy and you dont? ... An also if someone who reverts my edits gets a "stop it" message just the same as me then as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.158.112 (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal knowledge is considered original research, and so was removed per WP:NOR. The article currently reflects what is shown in existing reliable sources. To change it, you will need to locate supporting text in reliable sources that support the change. Please see WP:RS for a guideline on what qualifies as a reliable source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So with that rule he wouldn't be able to change it himself then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.158.112 (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He would need to prove it is him and not someone pretending to be him, would be simpler to find a reliable source. If it's true information regarding a persons name, one would think it would be published somewhere by a reliable source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what determines if someone is infamous/famous enough to be on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.158.112 (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the question. If you are asking if a person is notable enough to have an article about them on Wikipedia, the community has over the years and through community discussion developed guidelines on how to establish a person as notable, which can be read at WP:BIO. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you redact my talk page?

Why [4]? Looks like a constructive edit, others from this IP have been helpful. Dougweller (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I should have scrolled down further. Saw the random character inserted in front of a section header, breaking it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I appreciate the fact that you saw it! I was wondering if you knew something I didn't. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Walking:help

Please, I need your help. Kmuuli (Marko Kantaneva) has got angry and he has crossed out the text of Competitive Nordic Walking. I think that wikipedia admit information, but no sectarism. I have changed his edition.

There is a Competitive Nordic Walking and Non-competitive Nordic Walking. That's all. If there is a comercial Nordic Walking is the Marko Kantaneva's...

Thanks in advance,

--Walkingpole7 (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, the edit was done by an IP, not Kmuuli, so I'm not certain who actually made the edit.

I've added a cleanup box to the section, as the IP did have a valid point. At this time, the list of events only link to the events themselves. That establishes that they exist, but third party reliable sources are needed to justify that the organizers of the events are the recognized authoritative or governing body of the sport, and sources are needed that identify these events as "major" vs any other events for the sport. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the competitive nordic walking. I think that Nordic Walking in wikipedia is not correct. Kantaneva is sectarism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkingpole7 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 September 2012‎

Thanks for your note

Hi Barek. I appreciate your note on my talk page. I sincerely tried to resolve this matter with Cresix when I post these comments on his talk page last night. As you can see, they were detailed, good-faith comments to clearly explain the reasons for my edits. He completely ignored them and instead chose to simply revert again. He also falsely claimed in his edit comment that he had written to my talk page first, when in fact he hadn't posted to my talk page until 15 hours after I wrote him. I first wrote him at 05:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC).[5] His first comment to me wasn't until 19:58, 8 September 2012. So he wanted all the editors in the article to believe that I was the one who ignored him, when in fact it was completely the opposite. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern was diffusing the immediate back-forth escalation on each other's user talk page. Hopefully I've accomplished that, because it likely wasn't going to end well for either of you.

For the root cause of the dispute, there are several dispute resolution options available. So far, it appears the discussions have been going on in user talk pages, it would be better to discuss on the article talk page so that others who edit the article will also have visibility and can more easily participate. That also allows for easier tracking of consensus down the road, should anyone later ask why the article is the way it ends up. Once on the article talk page, an WP:RFC can also be attached, or neutrally worded links to that discussion can be posted to the group pages of any Wikiprojects that are tagged as being interested in the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am not opposed to some of the objections. However, completely ignoring the fact that good, strong cites are being removed and replaced with inadequate prior cites (that were incomplete or from before the event even took place) is unacceptable. So my primary issue is the removal of my entire edit, which is equivalent to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Sadly, this appears to be a clear case of discrimination against an IP. Because had an editor with an account replaced or corrected bad/inadequate cites with solid ones, they wouldn't have been touched. Instead, what's happened here is that everything I did was reverted. And it was done with absolutely no response to my detailed explanation. Thanks, Barek. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the reason I took it to Cresix's talk page instead of the article's talk page is because he was the only editor objecting to my edits, and reverting me. Thanks. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After all that, one of the objecting editors finally read my comments to Cresix and put back most of the content I put there in the first place. Ugh. ;) --76.189.97.91 (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you!

For kinda assisting me and Mean as custard dealing with a particularly troublesome user. I learned from how you dealt with him/her. Thank you, and here's a cheezburger from me :) Altaïr (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis M. Lynch

You have obviously taken down the Dennis M. Lynch site because you do not want people to know about the movie THEY COME TO AMERICA. Mr. Lynch has appeared on countless national TV shows, the film has played in theaters and it listed with IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. If this is incorrect, then please provide explanation. Otherwise, we plan to report our findings to WIKIPEDIA. We will discontinue our financial contributions to WIKIPEDIA. And we will report to the press that WIKIPEDIA is attempting to censor the film. We will do this on national TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.235.228 (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not taken anything down, the article remains available at Dennis M. Lynch. I have never edited the article, neither adding nor removing content. What I did do was to semi-protect the article because a user from two IP addresses was attempting to use the article as an advertisement, inserting promotional non-encyclopedic puffery to the article. Wikipedia is not a venue for posting advertisements; if that's your goal, you should instead purchase advertising space on radio, television, or websites that do sell advertising space. You seem to feel that claims of donating to Wikipedia in the past somehow purchased your right to post advertisements on Wikipedia, that is not the case.

Feel free to report to whomever you feel you must. I have been completely open in my actions and I hadn't even heard of the film until I saw a post at Wikipedia:Help desk complaining about the edit warring in the article.

I see that someone else has since added more neutrally worded and correctly sourced content about the film. I hope that by looking over their contributions, you can see the fundamental difference in how the material is presented in their version vs. your original additions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I have made my first edit to the article. The external links should be to official sites of the person (the article is about the person, not his projects), so I have updated the external links in the article to point to the appropriate blogs and profile pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tree

Thanks for you sensible intervention in removing all the extraneous and unhelpful comments that have recently appeared in Tree. I am sure that there are many editors like myself who are steering well clear of the article simply to avoid the bullying and sardonic comments by self appointed experts. One of the penalties of the way Wikipedia works I guess, but thanks anyway. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone who is an expert wants to improve the article, that's great; and I also have no problem with them starting constructive discussions on the article talk page. But, using hidden text to embed sarcastic and belittling comments into the article itself is just not excusable. If they can't behave civilly in a collaborative environment, they are more of a hindrance to Wikipedia than a benefit. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bonehill

What I meant was this. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking page

Regarding your edit to eliminate an opinion article: 18:38, 7 August 2012‎, Undid revision 506258525 by 168.12.114.15 (talk) rv - opinion article, no indication that author is an authority in the subject and no indication of research or factual sources for claims) (undo)

Someone has introduced the cracked.com opinion piece again. I reverted the edit twice. Any chance that you'd like to help out with this? Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, not that stupid opinion piece again. I have no problem if a reliable source can be found making those claims; but using cracked.com is beyond absurd. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. (I wasn't sure if I was out of line in asking.) - Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the cracked piece is merely expanding in detail on the claims made in the reliable sources as cited. I'll expand the content from them then, I just thought the cracked piece told the story better. I don't know what you are getting on about "absurd" claims, can you elaborate? The video he provided supports his assertions perfectly, and in fact I'm sure Elizabeth Blandra can support them as well with some of her sock puppet friends'articles at Now Public. (wiki blocked a direct link so please simply google Now Public Peacefrog, the account of the user identified in the checkuser investigation and scroll to the bottom and look at the article list. Dozens of articles promoting the conspiracy theories cracked speaks of). It's strange she is quite active in promoting these conspiracy theories off wiki as real yet is trying so hard to control their mention here. But this other editor is not the issue, just look at the referenced NY Times article Sharing their demons on the web and ask yourself if the cracked piece isn't hitting the nail squarely on the head. Or just google gangstalking for yourself and look at the hundreds, even thousands of websites by people claiming the government is after them doing trivial things to ruin their day. That would be your own OR but it would be hard to then call the cracked piece absurd. You're right, perhaps it does sound absurd, that's because the whole thing really is. People believing the government puts a dozen people in red t-shirts before them, hoping they might notice and it would cause them to crumble to pieces.Batvette (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as claims of socking, that's a secondary issue to this content, so I'm not going to address it here. If the other editor is a sock (I don't know the history or editing patterns), then you seem to already be aware of SPI and other avenues for dealing with abusive socks.

I said "beyond absurd" because the site fails WP:RS for this subject to such an extreme degree. Any analysis of specific content to elevate it to being reliable content despite the reliability of the overall site for the subject is using personal opinion to evaluate that specific content, which then fails WP:NOR. As I mentioned at talk:Stalking#cracked.com material, at best the site could be a source for a section on "stalking in popular culture"; but when it comes to an encyclopedic coverage of the facts, it's just not a reliable source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, this rationale but using cracked.com is beyond absurd is sufficient. I'm not going to reintroduce it. Batvette (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links on Domain appraisal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jprg1966 said I could (bottom) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanhcrow2013 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already replied at User talk:Jprg1966#Links. Regardless of your motives being pure or not, the links are simply not appropriate for an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. Wikipedia is not an internet directory, and links should not be added for that purpose.

On the other-hand, dmoz.org is an internet directory service, and the article already links over to that site per the suggested usage listed on our external link guideline. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vonage

Good stuff. I was out of line. Thanks for keeping the standards here high. - Fluck (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hu12

Thanks for your intervention - I've replied on my Talk page. But have you seen his latest response to me? It's to issue me with an "only warning" for incivility, which seems breathtakingly arrogant - this is the kind of admin behaviour that is increasingly giving us a bad name. If I don't see a retraction of that warning and some acceptance that he has been wrong here, I'll be very tempted to take it to ANI - he needs to be told firmly that his behaviour here has been inappropriate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Dispute with admin User:Hu12 regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:GLAM project - Contacts enquiry

Hi Barek,

I hope that this isn't an inappropriate enquiry, but I noted your contributions/edits to the Stamford, Lincolnshire Wikipedia page.

We are in the early stages of creating a project similar to the very successful Monmouthpedia [[6]] GLAM development. Stamford is a very similar town to Monmouth, with a great deal of history which we intend to capture and make available to visitors using QR codes.

Given the advanced state of the Monmouth project, it would seem logical for us to learn as much as possible from them, in order that we do not find ourselves making avoidable mistakes or reinventing the wheel, as it were.

Unfortunately, attempts to contact the people involved have so far proven fruitless. Any emails we have sent have not received replies, which I guess may be down to the sheer volume of enquiries they must be getting.

What I am seeking help with is the names/contact details of any Wikipedia GLAM people who I might be able to talk to about partnering and getting help with establishing our project. If this isn't something you have any knowledge of, then maybe you might be able to point me in the direction of someone else.

Any assistance would be much appreciated.

Gewitty (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canvas print

Hello. Why link to http://www.canvasprintsreviews.com is not appropriate? I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonhcoh29 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The site fails the inclusion criteria of WP:EL. If you disagree, my user talk page isn't the correct venue to discuss it; instead, please feel free to bring up the link for discussion on either the article talk page, or at the external links noticeboard. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daveandaustin

Is at it again. [7] and [8] starting within 6 hours of his unblock -- for the exact same behaviour. He appears to think he need not respond on talk pages. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPCORP

Please restore, I use it in my tag and assessments. If it is unused, it is because the articles tagged are often deleted (promotional company stubs). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this is the template you've used in the past? This one existed for under a week, was unused, and was entirely redundant to the existing template {{WPCO}}. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

kyleigh

Hello. I understand why you reverted the edit. I doubt there are any sources that say this, but nonetheless it's the obvious truth and anyone that lives in NJ knows it. But I understand that that isn't a source. I'm relatively new around here (if you consider the time that I wasn't actively posting), so I don't have too extensive knowledge on picking good sources. I found what I could from websites. I can't identify any of them that are unquestionably good. In fact I think all of them are probably not, but I thought I should ask you to review them and see if there's any that might work. These are the only sources (websites that weren't comments, videos, etc; although some are blogs) that I could find that mention the law as pointless.

Again, even though these aren't great sources, it's still common knowledge that nobody really cares or follows the law. And in general, the po-9 couldn't care less either, so I think we should find a way to work it into wikipedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 1 November 2012

I'm travelling right now, and having difficulty opening the links, but I'll take a look later. Blogs are potentially useful, depending upon who generates them (ie: some news agencies publish via blog software, and some legal experts may publish blogs).

I would suggest re-posting your above question on the talk page for the article, at Talk:Kyleigh's Law, that way everyone interested in the article can see the conversation and chime-in if they wish - as well as providing an easier to locate history of the discussion should it ever come up again in the future. If you can re-post on the article talk page, I'll reply there once I can look at the links more closely. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For all your hard work, contributions and administration of the Wikipedia project. Cheers. --Hu12 (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Home Staging Link

Barek,

Thanks for the message! I added that link towards the bottom of the page because it gives a great example of the types of items that a person stages their home with, and I know that a ton of Professional Home Stagers use this company to fill up the homes.

I think that it provides good insight into the industry, and would further help individuals with their understanding of the topic.

Thanks!

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowanmike (talk • contribs) 21:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link (homestagingbyaarons.com) is simply advert linkspam. It does not expand understanding of the subject, it only advertises a particular vendor. The link was removed per Wikipedia's guidline at WP:ELNO, and per the policy listed at WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A wrong target via Wikipedia's user talk

Hi,

It seems like you're anonymously targeting a certain IP address which happens to be assigned dynamically to different Internet users. I am not the person whom you're trying to reach with your message any more, and I've never tried editing any Wikipedia articles before, whatsoever.

P.S. I'm writing this in response to your message regarding the "Pittsburgh" article's editing.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.28.112 (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that many IP addresses are dynamic and the user of those addresses change - which is why I also posted the statement "If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices."

Feel free to create a user account; once you do and log in with it, you will no longer receive messages sent to a prior user of your IP address. Or, some people prefer not bothering to create an account - that's fine too. Just be aware that if you go this route, you will occasionally see messages such as at User talk:209.183.28.112 which were meant for a prior user of your IP address. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the article about Brian Redban?

Hello there. I was looking for information about Brian Redban on Wikipedia and I see that his article has been deleted. I ask why? He is certainly known, an entertainer and boss in charge of a well known and respected podcast network, and lastly as the right hand man of the powerful Joe Rogan, who with out Redban would not produce one of the most well known podcast shows on iTunes. All I am asking is what exactly is the criteria for an article about an individual? Redban should have an article on Wikipedia because he exist and is quite well known by many, many people. Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this. 99.124.193.177 (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the articles at Brian Redban and Brian redban:

The article was deleted by me because, per WP:CSD#A7, the article contained "no explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)". When it was recreated, it was also deleted by the other half dozen admins for the same reason, and eventually as a result of a community established consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Redban.

Wikipedia's content guideline on establishing notability for people can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Simply existing and being "quite well known by many, many people" does not establish notability. In short: a"person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meoow!... Fair enough. May the powerful Brian Redban fit Wikipedia's criteria for an article soon enough. Olive Garden to all. 99.124.193.177 (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crohn's disease.

Hi,

While I don't appreciate that studies are simply removed, I feel I need to explain myself if you believe this isn't constructive.

About a third of the crohn's disease page has been written solely by me. AIEC strains EC15 and EC10 are newly discovered pathogens and are implicit upregulators of TNF-α in the terminal ileum. This study is the first that shows correlation between cytokine upregulation, cell adhesion and actual damange to the epithelial barrier (the cause of intestinal damage is still a hot topic of debate, both cytokine release from macrophages and oxidative stress are able to cause cell damage).

That research not be removed or censored, I was asked to add to the microbe and microbiome section, commensal and pathogenic, in the talk section of the crohn's disease page.

The other study showed defective IL-1A expression in CD patients, irrespective of NOD2 stereotyping, which further undermines the notion that crohn's disease is an autoimmune disease instead of the overwhelming evidence, as supported by sources by me and other people (the line you restored to is my line, including the sources), that crohn's disease is a state of inherent immunodeficiency which leads to dysbiosis and invasion of the mucosal barrier.

For what it's wroth, I'm a student of biology at KUL Leuven and I have had crohn's disease for 10 years. Everything I have added to this article has been with the intention of keeping it up to date and never have I added something which could be mistaken as unconstructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.225.215.72 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 November 2012‎

I see the other changes now in the edit. The change you made to the info box was what was visible in the edit summary, until I scrolled down and saw the other changes. I was only intending to reverse the info box changes. I'll restore your other edits now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "I'll make you famous" Award

The "I'll make you famous" Award

Awarded for steadfast opposition to pressuring of editors by threats of supposedly adverse publicity. Historical notes: (1) There's no evidence that William H. Bonney (pictured) ever told anyone that he'd make them famous - as a threat, euphemism or otherwise - but his character does so in the film Young Guns II. (2) The last time this award was bestowed was in 2011 to User:ErrantX. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invesdor

Hello,

I got a message that my addition of a crowdfunding site Invesdor to crowdfunding listings was deleted. Why is this? I am quite new on editing Wikipedia, but it is strange that the first and leading open equity-based crowdfunding site in the Northern Europe is not yet here. It should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makellas (talk • contribs) 15:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(previously reply has already been archived to User talk:Barek/Archive 2012#Crowdfunding; copied here for reference)

Hello Makellas. I reviewed the history of edits at Crowd funding to refresh my memory on the addition. In my case, the one time that I removed the link was because it violated Wikipedia's guideline on external links (see WP:EL) as well as failing to meet Wikipedia's guideline on notability (see WP:CORP). The link was also removed by other editors for the same reasons. I'm sorry that you feel this has anything to do with a country bias. I see you attempted to create an article at Invesdor, but as it also did not meet the notability guideline of WP:CORP, it was also deleted.

For help on creating the article, another editor posted a welcome message on your talk page with some helpful links. Please see Wikipedia:Your first article as well as utilizing Wikipedia:New contributors' help page if you have any questions on creating the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Yum

Why you reverted me? that's me write up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dy824 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For biolgraphies of living persons, you must provide reliable sources as references for statements and claims about the person. You were removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted a my contribute unfairly, bringing back the poor and incorrect comments.....

To me looks like indeed now it does have alot of personal considerations, it is not objective, also it states really many things which are not correct, it miss alot of more important informations that were omitted, also it does advertise too much certain brands and certain machines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.80.120 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 8 November 2012‎

Jay Westervelt

You removed an expression , "larger than life ski pro" from a sourced reference and claimed that it was a promotional piece. Your assertion is entirely without merit, the expression comes from an unbiased historical account entirely unassociated with any business venture. It's a 40 + year old reference describing a decedent who worked for a now defunct ski corporation.

Meadowlarkmelon (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claim for "larger-than-life" appears to originate from http://www.skiernet.com/vernon-valley.html ... ~~which is a promotional piece. If there's a historical source other that that which still uses it, please add the appropriate reference.~~

You are correct that it's not a "promotional piece", poor choice of words by me. However, it is using unencyclopedic puffery, which is equally problematic. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that articles about a living person must abide by biographies of living persons policy, and that all articles need to be written from a neutral point of view. Puffery and weasel words have no place in the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProBiota (talk • contribs) 22:15, 27 November 2012‎

Note, I've also moved the mention of Jim Channon being added to the VHHFA advisory board over to his own article, where that mention is more appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Westerveld is self taught amateur not a professional Biologist. Claims to the contrary are a fraud. Fuque (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss improvements to article content is on the article talk page at Talk:Jay Westervelt, not on my user talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Just wanted to thank you for cleaning up my article. Will try to improve my syntax. Gorilla Guy (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)gorilla guy[reply]

thanks and more questions from Jingli

Hi Barek,

I've used wikipedia a lot and have really enjoyed benefited from doing so. That's why I were surprised when seeing articles here could be biased as well.

I tried to edit the article about Bo, Xilai several times but it seems to be 'guarded', i.e., the 'guard' will change the article back at the same time. I think you probably want to know this situation. As for the reference to Bo Xilai's involvement in illegal organ harvest in China and related corpse trade, the White House is having a petition campaign:

http://wh.gov/5Jmn

Also, do you know who is in charge of the Chinese wikipedia? The article there about DaJiYuan (Epoch Times Chinese Editions) seems to be written from somebody from the Chinese Communist Party and has obvious misleading points. Would you tell me how to correct it?

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A7%E7%B4%80%E5%85%83%E6%99%82%E5%A0%B1

Thanks.

Jingli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlkiger (talk • contribs) 11:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, neither YouTube nor a petition site qualify as a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. Do you have a link to a news website or something of that sort? That's what is needed to make such extraordinary claims on a biography of a living person.

Regarding the Chinese wikipedia site, I don't have any contacts on that site, so wouldn't be able to investigate any issues over there. They should have an equivalent of our Administrators' Noticeboard where you could raise your concerns on that site. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP who was blocked for personal attacks

Hello Barek. I happened to notice your recent block since I have this editor's page on my watchlist. I confess that I've been wondering about asking for a long-term block at ANI. His comments at Talk:Criticism of the Federal Reserve seem to inspire no support whatever, yet he continues regardless. My semiprotection on Criticism of the Federal Reserve expired on December 8 and he is back to inserting his usual theories there. It goes without saying that he does not wait for consensus before editing. This looks to me like a person who is frozen in time and is never going to change. A one-year block for disruptive editing would probably be justified, but when it expires, he would be back here as fresh as ever. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed the specific discussion on the talk page and have just glanced at the posts there periodically as it has had a habit of getting heated in the past. The two-week block I applied was specifically for the personal attack they had posted (and against which they had previously been warned). If there's grounds for a longer block due to disruptive editing, I have no objections to others extending the block to what they feel to be a more appropriate duration; although if they are as tenacious as you're saying, then I agree that it may take an ANI discussion, as a community ban might be needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contact

We probably need to talk about your recent undo's. Go ahead and send to my regular email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betsaari (talk • contribs) 23:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions should remain on Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to talk

Hi Barek, Thanks for identifying yourself. Not used to using the "talk page" or navigating all the ins and outs of WP. Let me know what your issue is; I see you have done a number of reversals re my contribs; it would be best if we reach an understanding re your issues so that we don't play a day by day phone tag sort of thing; you undo, I undo the undo. Let's have a mtg of the minds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betsaari (talk • contribs) 23:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am only the most recent of multiple editors to remove your links. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your website by spamming the link into multiple articles. You have a clear conflict of interest in promoting your own website, which is not an appropriate link for Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their account blocked, or have their websites blacklisted on Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bellevue International School

Hi Barek

Am assuming this last undo, just a few minutes ago came from you. Is that correct?

I co founded Bellevue International School in 1991. I founded Lake WA International Community School in 1997. I founded Marysville Arts and Technology in 2003.

The success of these schools is directly related to their history, to their curriculum, to their program goals, to their standards for moving forward (social promotion) and a number of other key items.

My pages present valuable information on these features.

Your previous comment referred to an "encyclopedia" and what you felt was or was not appropriate.

What I am posting here are documents that describe the original programs, their operation, their instructional culture and their curriculum design that were integral to the success of these schools.

These are founding type documents. That they link to curriculum that I sell is not the point; they describe the origin and culture of these programs, and if one wants to link to the curriculum, wondering "well, what was the curriculum like after all?" they can do so.

An encyclopedia should include all relevant information. My information is relevant by any standard that you may apply.

Wikipedia is rich and valuable because it can provide a spectrum of opinions, a set of pertinent resources about a topic. My resources, my information is more than pertinent about these subjects.

You are acting in that spirit, aren't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betsaari (talk • contribs) 01:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your re-additions were again removed by others. I also noticed that when you re-added them, you categorized their removal as having been done by a "vigilante", which is so far off to not deserve a response other than acknowledging the innapropriateness of such a statement. You clearly are too close to your URL which you are adding, and your conflict of interest is preventing you from viewing the additions from a neutral perspective. I did in fact review the material before removing the links. They are simply not appropriate for an encyclopedia project.

I see that others have also posted warnings on your user talk page. You have reached the limits of the community warnings, further additions of the links are likely to result in your user account being blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

social promotion

Hi Barek

I agree; let's talk rather than undo/undo.

I want to focus on the link for the wp page "social promotion." The link is: www.writingachievement.com/Retention.htm

Do you consider that page to be a discussion that contributes to fleshing out the topic of social promotion? Or is it spam?

I know that you have decided the latter, but I think you are misreading the page and what it offers on the topic.

If you believe it is spam, tell me what you think I need to do to the page in order to make it otherwise.

Look forward to your reply Betsaari (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is linkspam. For starters, it is your site and completely self-published (ie: not a third-party reliable source), so should not be used as a reference for any of the page content. As for adding it to the external links section; Wikipedia is not an internet directory to commentaries/narratives - yahoo as well as dmoz.org host internet directories, such links are better suited to listing on those sites.

The fix is simple, stop posting it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect link for marysville arts and technology

Hi Barek,

The current ref. link on this page is incorrect, which is why I changed it yesterday. Topschools.com used to contain this info, but that domain name no longer has the original contents that the link refers to. Those contents are on www.writingachievement.com/InternationalModel.htm. So the ref needs to be changed. Thanks Betsaari (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That link fails as a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. Unless a reliable third-party source can be found, the article should be trimmed down to what can be supported. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Westerveld edits

Please note that "Alan Stenberg", et al. have not produced any credible third-party sources for these continual and obsessive edits to Mr. Westervelt's page. It would appear that "Alan Stenberg" is successfully paring Mr. Westervelt's well-supported Professional biology career away from this page without valid cause.

I would also note that this likely sock-puppet user is not actually named "Alan Stenberg", and such false titling based upon names of living persons might also be a cause for concern in this case.

Semperfly (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I cannot understand why Alan Stenberg is continually remanded against vandalism (including a "last warning") by Barek with no real followup action. This evident sock-puppet appears to be acting on a personal dislike for the subject Jay Westervelt. Editing Dr. Westervelt's biology "career" to biology "avocation" without credible cause seems an obvious act of vandalism. References to Dr. Westervelt's career are cited on the page in question. Alan Stenberg makes continual minor "punctuation" edits to build false credibility and then he inserts unsupported verbiage.

Kimocarew (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that the minor edits I made were primarily punctuation and spacing changes. The other was purely factual. There is no need to change them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Stenberg (talk • contribs) 12:34, 15 December 2012‎

Do you have a reliable third-party source (not just a thesaurus) for your addition? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Westervelt page

I notice that you recently had to threaten a vandal with possible blocking if his editing persisted. In fact, it has, and no blocking has occurred as a result. Semperfly (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

social promotion talk

Hi Barek,

I have gone to the social promotion talk page suggested by Fred, and agree that the conversation should occur in one place rather than spread out.

But it seems that the page is not operative; the one he cited.

As for your question in your post: my social promotion article is located on my web page which describes the founding and operation of school programs that I have been directly involved with either as co founder, founder and/or program developer.

I am learning more about wiki here, about policies and so on. I ask you to understand that my intent has been to share experience that has been acquired as a result of developing schools and programs and seeing and evaluating the success or failure of these practices. I see where your reliable sources policy does acknowledge that "experts" in a field may also be considered, though the pref seems to lie with academically published work. That's the encyclopedia angle I think you guys are coming from. I would humbly submit that as a school developer I may be considered an "expert" of sorts; a reliable source re. those schools, programs and policies. At the same time, I understand your dislike of linkages to curriculum packages that are interlaced throughout the web pages. Which is why I suggested a PDF w/out linkages that you might have thought were commercial. Just want you to know that in my exp., the curriculum, the program, the philosophy, the approach--these are all inter-related. It is curric delivery, curric design and classroom management and school culture together that make for student success; hence my inclusion of curriculum, ref. to which I would remove in a pdf. So there is my apologia for you. The intent was not to spam, but to share and "educate" re these experiences; and I must say when I woke up to see five or six of my contributions voided overnight without a discussion or full explanation (again, being unaware of all wiki policies)I felt mugged. Hence the vigilante outburst.

Ok I want to work on this. I need help getting to the right place to have this conversation. This wiki stuff is hard. In the meantime, I have searched for any outside refs to my article on social promotion and came up w these. They may be useful, may be some validation (?) or not. But there are some who believe my contribs are of some value, given my experience. (Pls NOTE: All links here are to topschools.com. I SOLD that domain name last June and it no longer hosts my content, though my meta descriptions still appear on their pages in google searches. Their mission is entirely different from mine. The corrected links (as these were created before the sale of the domain and transfer of the content) would be to www.writingachievement.com/EXACT SAME HTM PAGE NAMES FOLLOW AFTER THE SLASH. http://wps.prenhall.com/chet_webb_foundations_5/48/12415/3178250.cw/content/index.html

books.google.com/books?isbn=0615134742

http://books.google.com/books?id=uwyJSbCTdY0C&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=%22www.topschools.com/Retention.htm%22&source=bl&ots=soNRlaMxe_&sig=5FcdLp_zmid-brBkUdxvsiygD0E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TVvOUJDuJeL2igLdwIH4Bg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22www.topschools.com%2FRetention.htm%22&f=false

sboughten.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/social-promotion.docx

http://wps.prenhall.com/chet_foundations_cluster_1/41/10533/2696530.cw/-/2696532/index.html

This navigating the talk is a challenge. Since you piggybacked on fred can you share w him this response? Just help steer me where to go to see what can happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betsaari (talk • contribs) 00:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Betsaari (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the other parent"

Well, no I am not playing divide and conquer. Not playing one against the other. I am trying to have a conversation and find this process challenging here. Don't know the ropes, but pls don't assume that means manipulation is at work here. So I come to this page after writing you a long reply over at the social promotion page; truly, I would rather make one reply and have it centrally located. You are busy and so am I; both of us would like to focus and maximize our time I am sure. In that reply I requested your guidance as to where to locate this centrally; I also wrote the same to Fred and asked him to refer to the msg I sent to you. Labyrinthine I know; but I didn't create this process and probably you didn't either! Want to work this out w you in a good spirit. I know you do too. Betsaari (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reference #1 on lk washington international community school

Barek,

I wrote you about this yesterday but don't think you have gotten around to it.

Reference no. 1 on the Marysville Arts and Technology school page links to a domain name (topschools.com) that I owned when the link was created but which I sold last June. I sold the domain name but not the content. Hence, the new owners do not feature or offer that content on that domain any longer. It is now an entirely incorrect and misleading link. You can delete the link (which I had corrected previously and you reverted), or you can replace it with the original source content which is now located at www.writingachievement.com/InternationalModel.htm.

I recognize that you may not consider my story of the founding of the school a reliable source. I realize that is your policy. Ok. So trash the link or replace it as you may desire, but as it stands it needs to be corrected. Pls respond that you have looked into this. It's actually important to me and should be to WP; either the correct link or none at all.Betsaari (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've flagged the reference as a {{dead link}}. —C.Fred (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

marysville arts and technology links to address your concern

Barek, left this msg for Fred over on his talk pg. Said I'd do the same for you.

Hi Fred,

Did some research today looking for 2004 news articles that address the question barek raised re third party validation of Bruce S involvement in this school. Of the four, three have been archived by zoom info; but as you open those you will see the verifiability of the source, either Everett Herald or Seattle Times. Scrolling through each you will see the principal named.

Re Marysville Arts and Technology High School

Compact Learning, by Eric Stevick, Everett Herald March 1, 2004 http://www.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0&page_id=620143078&page_url=//www.heraldnet.com/Stories/04/3/1/18236022.cfm&page_last_updated=2004-03-01T06:54:19&firstName=Bruce&lastName=Saari

Judge to hear complaints in bid to end teachers strike Seattle Times, Oct 15, 2003 http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20031015&slug=marysville15m0

Seattle Times, NWSource/School Profile http://www.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=924818657&page_id=659236244&page_url=//schoolguide.seattletimes.nwsource.com/schoolprofile.cfm?profileID=1927MLH&page_last_updated=2004-04-07T09:10:43&firstName=Bruce&lastName=Saari

School FYI June 8 2004 Everett Herald http://www.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0&page_id=714451443&page_url=//www.heraldnet.net/stories/04/06/08/loc_schoolfyi001.cfm&page_last_updated=2004-06-09T22:30:52&firstName=Bruce&lastName=Saari

Betsaari (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Betsaari (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

another msg re social promotion and international schools

Barek, in case you don't get over there to Fred's talk page, I just sent him this as well. It could just as well have gone to you, but you are away I see.

Fred,

Given the links I have shared re marysville a&t, and the refs to the principal's work at other schools, is it time to consider re-adding www.writingachievement.com/InternationalModel.htm to this page as an external link? It's the history of the founding of the school told from a founder's perspective. It is not the article itself, it is a link.

http://www.northkitsapherald.com/news/19747059.html

If you read this article, it also describes involvement in Bellevue International, Lake Washington International and Marysville Arts and Technology. Furthermore, it describes the retention policy at the international schools, which was the subject of the page www.writingachievement.com/Retention.htm that barek deleted from the Wiki Social Promotion page.

Given these third party sources, I am asking you to consider reverting Barek's deletions because the reliable sources (news articles) exist. That means we would reinstate those pages that were deleted, specifically InternationalModel.htm for LW and Bellevue and Retention.htm for the wiki page Social Promotion.

Again, these would be links, not the body of the page. I would think that the body of the page would be encyclopedic in style, but that links from first hand participants, founders or principals would be a useful addendum to an encyclopedia article. For ex., if we found a personal letter from Fredrick Douglass to his wife, would we not include it if it described his exp w slavery, even though, technically he is not a "reliable source" by wp standards? I am reminded of the recent Philip Roth flap. Betsaari (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barek, I've advised Betsaari that the article talk pages are the appropriate venues if he wants to add the links to articles, not our individual talk pages. I also reminded him that his conflict of interest will likely be brought up in the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred - thank you - I agree, the article talk pages would be better. Unfortunately, I have sporadic access to the internet, which will likely continue off-and-on until around the 1st of the new year - but I will try to comment as time permits. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a final notice to Betsaari. Its clear he's only here to promote his sites (topschools.com writingachievement.com). This promotion includes the excessive posting to both your talkpages, essentially pushing for those sites inclusion--Hu12 (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

copy for you

Fred, A former student of mine created the History of Bellevue International School video which is referenced on the Bellevue International School page. It's a great video. But according to your standards it should not be listed on the page. Why? First, because the questions were created by, and filming done by a student at the school--obviously one too close to the subject; second, it is entirely self-published; third, and most damning, the video interviews teachers who actually founded and worked at the school. They are obviously not reliable sources. Obviously. They definitely have a conflict of interest. Don't you see how silly this is getting? Betsaari (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

	A longevity barnstar.
	Wishing you the Peace of the season and prosperity in the New Year 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]