Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barek/Archive_2013.
Hi So I ended up with my complaint in the wrong place. Can you help me direct it to the correct place. There are more than 10 top Canadian media sources on my subject Shannon_T._Boodram - and it is very clear the user nominated AFD without even looking at the sources. A basic knowledge of Canadian Media would tell you articles about the subject in MacLeans, Metro, contribution to TVO, and hosting on Rogers TV, to name a few would nearly establish notability on their own. Canadaindiefilms (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The user applied a prod, and when that was removed they escallated to using an AfD process for community input. This is the appropriate escalation path when someone believes that an article should be deleted.
The user's reply in the AfD makes it at least appear that they did look at the sources - they specifically responded one by one on the sources to explain why they believe the general notability guideline requirements were not met. A dispute in interpretation of policy is not in itself abuse.
If you disagree and still feel they are abusing their editing privileges, you are welcome to bring the user up for discussion at WP:ANI; but be aware that actions of both parties get reviewed at ANI. Lastly, you should be aware that a sock puppet investigation has already confirmed you to be a sock of multiple other accounts, so denial of that is unlikely to be received well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The havn't re-added the material since receiving the most recent warning, so I'm hopeful the disruptive behavior will stop. If they do resume, I have both the article page and the IP's user page on my watchlist, so will take action later if needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Language and Ethnicity of Bangalore
Language of Bangalore is Kannada from centuries. who gave the right to wikipedia to change that ....Don't play with culture and Language of Kannadigas...We are very emotional towards our language...Every big city have numerous languages in the homes of residents where as there will be only one language as spoken language to communicate with each others. That doesn't mean you should list all languages as spoken language. Same with Ethnicity... Bangalore is and was always a kannada city founded by a kannada ruler. How it is possible to declare Bangalore as Tamil ethnic city. This is a grave mistake against history.
You are deleting material that appears to be adequately sourced to third-party reliable sources, and leaving your unsourced opinion in its place. Please take the time to learn Wikipedia policies in this regard, and continued disruption of forcing your opinion over sourced content generally results in accounts being blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the backlogs are quite heavy, typically. I've done a very quick search and did not find anything relating to that article. It might be there, but given the user, it is unlikely. Rjd0060 (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reporting it. It looks like HJ Mitchell already did a revision deletion for the problematic material. Let me know if you see it happen again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Can you help me with something? I was wondering what "rv copyvio - simple cut/paste of content" means. I see that you undid my revision of the .travel page, and was wondering how and where I went wrong. Any advice would be gratefully received, I don't want to offer bad content. ---TomRoskilly (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I worked out what it meant, thank you for acting fast. Im a complete idiot for doing that. I have removed all the copied data from travel.travel apart from the list containing the Industry Segments. Can you do me a favour and give it a quick check to make sure that its all kosher now? I think I must have copied my draft instead of the final copy from notepad. Sorry for being a pain. Kind regards ---TomRoskilly (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
im not sure how i would post this, but isnt personal life and relationships a section on most wikipedia pages. I go to Riley's school... soooo, and he also plays on the varsity team now days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhattarai7 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's already mentioned in the article that he attends the school. As to life and relationships - we require third-party reliable sources to support those claims in articles that are biographiess of living persons. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see my suggestion being discussed to verify consensus, although I disagree with the application of WP:CONSENSUS being used in that discussion to support it. I do believe that the sources adequately define the company as an MLM, and that the mention does belong in the "Career" section. My primary reasoning with removing it from the lead is that it's not a defining characteristic of the article subject (ie: the person), although it is a defining characteristic of the company.
However, as I said before, the only reason the page is on my watchlist is due to prior edit warring complaints, and I try to monitor for those. Other than that, I simply have no interest in the person or the company, and would rather invest my limited time on other subject areas.
Unfortunately, I don't appear to be alone in that regards. There are only 47 users with the page on their watchlist, and only a much smaller subset that is actively discussing it. The discussion appears to be stuck, with both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. I would suggest either a neutrally worded request for other opinions via an WP:RFC or at WP:BLPN (or, any other applicable tool from WP:CONTENTDISPUTE). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a copyvio: the source publication has a notice at the bottom of the page in question with a CC/GFDL license that's compatible with Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was wondering why the link was removed - First Person View is a fast growing field of RC flying and I placed a link to that particular blog as an example of a "how to" which, for someone trying to find out more about First Person View may find useful.
As there are no definitive sources for information on FPV flying, I feel that the link is useful and would assist someone in lieu of there being anything better out there.
If reliable sources exist to improve the Wikipedia article, please work on the article content; but, Wikipedia is not an internet directory, nor is it the place to advertise your blog. Please read WP:EL and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY for more on this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Henna
I thought you were the one adding that unsourced remark. I was reverting the dating to BCE/CE, which was the original dating scheme that the person who did the rewrites used. Every so often someone comes along and arbitrarily changes it to BC\AD with no explanation and no compelling reason for doing so. Sorry about the confusion. 49oxen (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was some quick action on our Wyndham Bonnet Creek vandal and catching his puppets so quick too! I was about to submit to WP:ANV but you already took care of it. Thanks :) -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Flogging you say? Well, it is a holiday for me today and I could use a little entertainment; however I'll save you the trouble and instead just revel in the irony of a checkuser being blocked for block evasion. Now that's entertainment! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots20:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry next time ill think twice good sir
Maybe you could help me?
I'm not really sure what I'm actually supposed to be doing?
I Want to help out but all I know is video games
you guys have anything needs filling in on video games? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeek1227 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dude - deleting page edits to Gunn High School while someone is trying to make edits is jerk like behavior. you are being abusive. please stop it.
Please leave the Gunn High School Page alone while my son works on editing it. Your behavior in reverting changes while he is working on the pages seems just plain rude and nasty. There is no freaking harm being done to anyone, and frankly, reverting changes like that breaks the model of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.222.246 (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained at user talk:Puppyspencer, Wikipedia has a notability guideline listed at WP:BIO. The person you are attempting to add to Gunn High School has not been shown to meet the threshold established by that guideline, nor has any source been provided that connects the person to the school, per WP:RS and WP:V.
The last entry to the Montgomery,Pa has been added to promote external awareness and interest in Montgomery's established and growing popular culture folk lure tourism industry. The information conttained in the edit is considered constructive and significant. The edit in question has been reinterred onto the Montgomery,Pa page.
If there are specific complaints and/or issues, the entry can be modified at that time.
Thank you for your efforts to keep Wikipieda a reliable source of usable information. I can understand how this entry could be construed as less than genuine.
Please do not randomly delete things or make accusations without evidence. Evertime I've undone your changes I've added references to the stated issue. Pay more attention in future.
78.145.92.13 (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal attack in the edit summary of your first revert was entirely inappropriate. However, you are correct that I missed the addition of the refs in that same edit. Thank you for adding the required refs. I have commented further on your own talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate perhaps but it's frustrating when people don't do a 1 minute search to verify something as appose to just deleting a whole section then I have to fix it over and over. Please use:
I am quite familiar with that tag. Read the last sentence in it: "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." In biographies of living persons, the need for reliable sources receive an even higher priority (see WP:BLP). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is a tour guide at the cave not reliable? They have to know the ins and the outs of the cave, or they lose their job. Please inform me on how to make it a real citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellie.cunningham (talk • contribs) 23:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm citing him because he has an actual source. That's how sources work. He is reliable, not to your standards but he is, and its not original research. I am sitting next to him as he tells me the information because he works there. What source are you recommending I use over the actual tour guide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellie.cunningham (talk • contribs) 23:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can make claims of sitting next to someone, or themselves being someone with first-hand knowledge. Simply saying we should take your word for the truth is not citing a reliable source. What are needed are published sources. The reliable source policy is directly related to our policy on verifiability. On top of that, the material being added is at best a marketing narrative for the tour, not actually about the cave itself. It's material that simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I overlooked that site being CC BY 3.0; for some reason, I thought I saw a different tagging on that page.
You are correct, the only issue here is attribution (which is still technically a copyvio, but one that can be easily resolved). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know what I need to change to make my edit to Pong Beer reliable? I added one the other day and changed it so that it didn't sound promotional. I would really appreicate your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganmarlinent (talk • contribs) 17:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe it's possible to list a specific brand of beer in the Beer Pong article without it being promotional. The mention simply does not belong in that article.
If there are third-party reliable sources available that can establish the product as notable, then it may be appropriate to create it's own article at Pong Beer; although I suspect there is insufficient material or sources to justify its own article. The beer should probably be listed at City Brewing Company; but that would only be the beer brand name (as is listed for other brands at that article). As you can see, only some of the products listed there have reached sufficient notability as yet for their own articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. We understand your concern of Pong Beer in a beer pong article appearing promotional, for the companies founder beer pong the game was his soul inspriation for creating the brand. We wanted a brand with a personality and storyline and beer pong gave us that platform. I will attempt to create my own article called "Pong Beer." With regards to your comments I had listed third party reliable sources in that article, and can provide more if that is what you are looking for. I have work cited from The Wall Street Journal, CNBC, Beverage World, and The Las Vegas, Nevada Journal. Here is an example of the sources so you can see first hand what I submitted.
On January 15th 2012, Beverage World showcased Pong Beer “Beer Pong Gets Its Own Branded Brew.” www.Beverageworld.com
Pong Beer sponsored two-time World Series of Beer Pong winner Ron Hamilton and his team “Smashing Time” at the World Series of Beer Pong Tournament in Las Vegas, Nevada January 1-5, 2012 http://www.cnbc.com/id/42109700"
Could you autoconfirm protect the American Dad! article?! An individual handling multiple IP addresses keeps altering sourced information and inserting what is a supporting character in as one of the show's main character in the opening where it doesn't belong. "Boss Avery," the character in question, is not one of the show's main characters, but the user of IPs keeps on putting this into the opening as such. Even as shown in the following link, Boss Avery isn't a main character List of American Dad! charactersl; he's a supporting. The IP also keeps wanting to describe Stan as "lovable", which is quite odd considering Stan's regular violence on the program, without at least supporting this with a source. I've gone ahead and removed the description out of the opening as it was misplaced within the article and redundant anyway, but I'm afraid the user handling different IP's will try to come back and revert again. AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pong Beer
Thank you for your help. We addressed your concern about Pong Beer in a beer pong article appearing promotional, for the companies founder beer pong the game was his soul inspriation for creating the brand. I will attempt to create my own article called "Pong Beer." With regards to your comments I had listed third party reliable sources in that article, and can provide more if that is what you are looking for. I have work cited from The Wall Street Journal, CNBC, Beverage World, and The Las Vegas, Nevada Journal. Here is an example of the sources so you can see first hand what I submitted.
On January 15th 2012, Beverage World showcased Pong Beer “Beer Pong Gets Its Own Branded Brew.” www.Beverageworld.com
Pong Beer sponsored two-time World Series of Beer Pong winner Ron Hamilton and his team “Smashing Time” at the World Series of Beer Pong Tournament in Las Vegas, Nevada January 1-5, 2012 http://www.cnbc.com/id/42109700"
It appears the listed links are directory listings, or self-published content. Are there any third-party sources that discuss the company? Without those, it's unlikely that the article will meet the notability guidelines that are outlined at WP:CORP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
openmusic page
hello,
I noticed a malicious anonymous edit on the OpenMusic page (aggressively stating a "hijacking" of another software) and I tried to get things objective and serene by writing a very detailed history of the generations of composition software at ircam and the way they have influenced each other (PatchWork had some influence on OpenMusic, which created new ideas and influenced in turn PWGL which is a descendent of PatchWork, so there's no point in diffusing hatred, all these are great musical softwares)
However this detailed history was deleted because it was perceived as promotional.
So in the last version, I just removed the malevolent and aggressive edit, as well as the promotional material for PWGL that had maliciously been introduced by the same anonymous person in the OpenMusic entry. So the page is minimal, but it is objective and free from aggressive and vicious inclusions.
Hi Administrator Barek. I am WorldTraveller101. For 10 months I have observed the user Jenniepierce567 make disruptive edits and for 7 months, she has been receiving warning about useful contributions. Based on the frequency, I believe she should be blocked for at least 1 week. She does not seem to get the message, even after 7 months of warnings and 10 administrator discussions, none of which she participated in. If she is not blocked, she will continue to disrupt Wikipedia. Thanks for all help. -Connor (WorldTraveller101 | talk | contribs) 01:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at ANI from March 31 seems to have ended with the reviewing admin stating there was not sufficient disruption to warrant a block - that in itself tells me there's insufficient consensus to warrant a block at least at the time of that discussion. If that has changed, feel free to open a new ANI discussion, but be certain to provide specific examples of new disruptive edits. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I confess that I'm not a big fan of pending review, but what am I doing wrong (see Anne Hathaway)? According to WP:RG: "in case of obvious vandalism by one user, use native rollback or undo to revert the edit(s) (the new revision is automatically accepted)". Now, in Hathaway's case, I used a special rollback that allows me to put in an explanation as opposed to "native rollback". Is that why my revert wasn't automatically accepted?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I did the review, it showed no net changes (so it was merging both your and the IP edit as needing to be reviewed). I was surprised to see it, I thought that edits by anyone in the "Administrator" user's group was supposed to be automatically flagged as reviewed - so I'm not sure what caused it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad I'm not alone. I guess next time I'll just reject the changes with a more pointed explanation or use the normal rollback feature.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:V, which states: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." - the burden is upon you to locate a thrid-party reliable source to support the claims.
Also, you should be aware of WP:3RR, which states: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." ... had I not protected the page, I would have likely been soon blocking accounts instead as a result of edit warring. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gunfighters for Hire
I apologize for any inconsistent entries I made earlier, but I am a little confused and need some advice. I am the media contact and web master for Gunfighters for Hire, a CA registered non-profit 501(c)(4) organization in Pioneertown. In the article regarding Pioneertown, I had inserted the name of our group and a link to our official website: www.gunfightersforhire.org. As we are one of the original groups that have performed there and our mission is to raise money and donate to other non-profit organizations, I had thought the entries would have been allowed. I think I may have mis-understood the policy. Having said this, would it not be important to include our organization as this is the primary location of our performances and that visitors come to Pioneertown from around the world. This is verifiable through a number of sources including The Hi-Desert Star newspaper of Yucca Valley, the Yucca Valley Chamber of Commerce, KMIR TV of Palm Desert and KESQ TV of Palm Springs, to name a few. Is our organization eligible to have its own entry in Wikipedia? Also none of our members are paid or receive compensation for performing at Pioneertown. Thank you. Wikiuser 92260 (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am creating an article for Mr.CAP. I am doing something wrong because it keeps getting deleted. I have checked to insure to only add facts about Mr.CAP.
I want to proceed correctly. What must I do? Corneliusapratt (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I made some edits to the National Park Service page last week that were quickly (within an hour) removed from the page. I am interested in learning why as they were fully referenced and cited with mostly National Park Service official documents and commissioned reports. Nwasserman84 (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)NWasserman84, 4/23/13, 5pm est[reply]
Sorry for not responding sooner. The first paragraph of what you added was actually fine, I should not have reverted your full edit. The problem began in the second paragraph through to the end of the addition, where the material switched to editorializing, drawing conclusions (synthesis), and not using neutral point of view. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are mistaken about the usual capitalization of Wikipedia article titles. As explained at the Wikipedia manual of style guideline at WP:MOS, the correct capitalization is 'Centralia mine fire', not 'Centralia Mine Fire'.
Your comment appears to suggest a reluctant acceptance of the appropriate capitalization; but you haven't reverted to the correct version - are you wanting me to do it for you? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Barek - A reason please for removal of the link to the book Memories with Maya posted under the Fiction section of the Technological Singularity wiki page
Barek, as in the title of this topic: May I know the reason you removed the link to the book Memories with Maya?
Is it any different than the link for "Fringe" from Fox networks?
for your reference here is Fox's Fringe external link posted under the Technological Singularity wiki pages in the Fiction subheading:
Fringe The entire fringe series deals with the results of technological singularity's as well as the effect such things may have on the human necessity's of love and family.
That maybe true.. yet I have to wonder then why you choose/chose to remove a specific link I added (and that too in the appropriate section labeled FICTION, yet you saw it fit to leave the "other stuff" intact)
I did visit the Technological Singularity wiki page again, and now see that the entire FICTION link has been removed? (or is it just not showing for me for some reason)
But if the entire section has been removed, I'm again puzzled at who/what took that decision. Fiction on technological Singularity... particularly hard science (v/s scifi) is much needed as a catalyst - a way to bring these high profile concepts (Technologicla Singularity, transhumanism, etc...) to lay people.
Hi Barek, it is Leoesb1032. I just wanted to know that the Centralia mine fire page may not be the most "top quality" Wikipedia page yet, but with the help of you and other important editors, we could make it better and so it does not basically rephrase everything stated on Centralia, Pennsylvania. I would appreciate it if you would consider keeping the two articles separate. Leave a message on my Talk page if you'd like.
Thanks, Leoesb1032 (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions should remain on article talk pages so that other users can see what was previously discussed. There are exceptions of course, such as off-topic discussions should be either moved to user talk pages or removed entirely. But for on-topic discussions of the article, the discussions should remain and/or eventually get archived (basically moved to a sub-page of the talk page). More on this can be found at WP:TALK and WP:ARCHIVE. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Goad
Hey, I am the one who has been editing Jim Goad's page, my apologies. I would have tried to pursue an alternate route, but i am still learning the editing process and it became very unclear. The point I was trying to achieve with my edits, which was more than being immature, is that this page reads like a PR release. Huge, important details of his life are glossed over in the entry even though they are included in the sources linked. These details do not portray him in a good light. Yet, when it comes to his writing style there is nothing but great quotes (and the links which say more than the Wikipedia page addresses). As a longtime reader this page offended me. It literally reads as what Jim Goad would like you to read. Plus, there are a lot of grammatical mistakes.
Yesterday I've made an article about the Dolphin Embassy, after few hours I've got the message about the "speedy deliting" baner (because of "promotion"), after I've rote my cases in the "Contested deletion" but nobody answered me and I found that the article is already deleted.
My cases in "Contested deletion":
This page is not promotional because...
it doesn't promote anything except humanistic ideals, because it's mostly about non-governmental humanitarian mission - so the organisation has no profit for it's activity
people around the world who are taking care about dolphins and whales well-know this organisation for a great informational support, because, as it mentioned, Dolphin Embassy (among others) organized "social and cultural events", such as here Workshop for kids in India
the main idea of the Embassy - it's humanitarian mission is supported by the eminent scientists, artists and public figures (what is mentioned in the article), such as: Jean Houston, Amit Goswami [1], Ashok Khosla [2], Slava Polunin, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Graeme Kelleher, [3], Stanislav Grof and Djivan Gasparyan - please, take your time to check this information
it's objective and totally reliable although it's written in a specific style for such kind of organisations
From my side, i'd like to ask you:
if the reason of "speedy deletion" is the "promotional" character of the article, what its "promote"? Itself (the organisation)? in this way, explain me, please, the difference between Dolphin Embassy's "promotion" and the following "promotions": Silva_Project, European_Travel_Commission, The_community_Zabej
where are the criteria for the "promotion"? Please, don't copy here all this Wiki templates about it - show me what is incorrect (and why!) directly in the article.
Regards
Because I have no answer in "Contest" and the article was deleted - I create an updated article (structured and without so many links) again, but you've deleted it.
User:Barek, it's true - you are not only one, as I mentioned before: "nobody answered me and I found that the article is already deleted". You right, I wrote to the User talk:RHaworth#Dolphin Embassy after it and he answered me that there was "no deletion to contest (yet)" - surely, because he has deleted the article within few hours (i was in process of writing my cases at this time) + we've got a big difference in the time zones!
Finaly, as I understand, the only solution to create the Dolphin Embassy article for me now is to wait for the decision in the Articles for creation field - is it right?
Sorry for the late response. re: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Dolphin Embassy, the two options presented by RHaworth appear the best options at this point. Either wait for a reviewer from the AfC process, and then if they address any issues address those. Or, if you move it to article space, anticipate that it appears it will by taken to AfD for a deletion discussion. To be honest, I think the AfC path is the best choice ... although even then it's not a sure thing, as items that are created through AfC still sometimes end up being taken to AfD.
Hi Barek
I believe you were wrong to edit out my addition to the bridge loan page. The West One Bridging Index is at the moment the only source of reference this sector has for monitoring the state of the bridging market. It is not a marketing tool for West One Loans, but a serious guide to the bridging market. I am currently waiting for the Index to have its own entry cleared for publication. As stated in the entry, there is no FSA protection in this sector, however the index (which is free) provides detailed information on LTV, loan sizes, Interest rates etc. I would strongly suggest you put the information back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andymossy (talk • contribs) 16:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting my edit. I started using Dictionary of Numbers bookmarklet and it was screwing up each edit I made. Sorry for the trouble. Chris Troutman (talk)20:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:EL and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. In short, just because a link exists does not mean it needs to be added. The question is how does it benefit the article. In the cases of your links, they are redundant to information already in the article, not benefiting the Wikipedia users in any way. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the Bert Wilson entry deleted in the musical influences section of Olympia, WA? Put him back in there. He's known well enough to be written up in Downbeat. That's significant. Just because he is not a pop musician doesn't mean he's not important. Please send me a talk back notice.Mrorangesmu (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The addition was entirely unsourced, and fails multiple inclusion criteria. If you can locate some reliable sources that establish that the person meets Wikipedia's guideline for establishing notability and that can be used to verify his connection to the city, then it would resolve the problem. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in my user sandbox, I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page.
I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Wikipedia). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Wikipedia and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming it will be closed as no consensus for a merge (ie: will remain separate) - but that's up to the person that closes the RfC to determine. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I saw the RfC box was gone so I assumed it was closed.
Sockpuppet
I am not a sockpuppet, I know Matthewb103. Please stop blmaing me. Even if I was a sockpuppet (which I'm not), what is the effect that it makes on Wikipedia fact accuracy? Leoesb1032 (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: bad check restitution
I have been communicating with discospinster on this, who I thought had done the deletion.
The link that has been on wikipedia for a long time was checkrestitution.com, which I recently streamlined and changed to protectcheckwriters.com. Private DA check collection companies are a horrible trick on consumers, who are fooled into believing they are going to be prosecuted if they don't take a "diversion class" that is offered only as an excuse to add on up to $235 in a class fee (in addition to other fees.) The wikipedia page seems to have been put together by companies advocating these programs, and by me, advocating for the consumer.
This is a neglected area, probably b/c I do not deny wanting to represent victims of these scams, but if you look on the web, you'll see that I have the only site that provides any consumer info. The other sites are simply DA sites supporting these programs. (And most of those sites are maintained by the two major companies that run DA check collection businesses, look for DA sites with either a checkprogram.com, or hotchecks.com address.) It is not my fault that no one else with a web presence is standing up for consumers on this issue, but the fact remains that there is no one in the country who has as much information as I have about these business, other than someone who works for them. (Check out the news articles on my website. I am quoted in almost all of them, not b/c I'm smarter than anyone else, but b/c I happen to have developed a real expertise in this area.) By the way, I talk to consumers without charge, and have provided information to hundreds of restitution program victims without ever filing a case or receiving any compensation.
Any while your editing, why don't you take out the entire paragraph devoted to explaining the vacated jury verdict in a case in which the defendant got temporarily lucky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.125.108.31 (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The link is nothing more than a spammed advertising link. Stop adding it, or your account will be blocked. Persistent spammers can also have their sites added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist, preventing the re-addition of the link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adult Friend Finder
Hi,
i just want to say few things about your removal of redirect link on Adult Friend Finder. The main link is blacklisted because of spamming on other pages related to dating, like Online dating service or Dating. Official website is completely legal and has no malware, and only reason for blacklisting is spam on various Wikipedia pages, as i already said. I think you will agree that it's dumb not to have link to a website on wiki page that is describing it. This domain for redirect is also completely legal, so i really don't see the problem about having it on the page. I am putting the link once again, and i am sure that you will agree with me on this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.141.160.65 (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a link is needed, that should be resolved by either getting a white-listed link, or by having the blacklisting removed. A link that redirects to bypass the blacklist is a violation of site policy, and should not be added to any article. Also, repeated additions will result in the redirect being blacklisted as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had wondered where those post too ... when I logged in this morning, the "Your notifications" icon had the thank you listed as one of my notifications. It just says who sent it, links to the edit, and shows the edit summary text. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you examined the discussion before passing a decision on it. There was no "consensus". There was a "vote" bey a bunch of people that didn't know what is really being discussed. Wikipedia article contents are based on SOURCES not votes!!Klax44 (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus on the talk page is overwhelmingly clear, which is why I appropriately declined your move request. You don't have to agree with it, but you need to recognize it for what it is: consensus. Your opinion that the established consensus should be thrown out based on your personal rejection of it is NOT how Wikipedia works. Likewise, if you continue edit warring in the article against the established consensus, you will be blocked for edit warring. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The tag should be removed from the articles, but the talk page discussion should remain for future reference, in case the question ever comes up again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the removal of the merge tags was reverted ... you mentioned that the article "had been approved to stay separate", but looking now, I'm not seeing where anyone seperate from the discussion has officially closed the RfC. Was the comment about approval from a different page that I'm missing? If not, then a request for closure should be submitted. I'm suspecting a non-consensus will result, meaning keeping them separate as they are now ... but a non-involved third party should be the one to make that closure. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I reverted, because apparently Leo learned absolutely nothing from his mini-Wikivacation for sockpuppetry – upon his return, he unilaterally and falsely declared that "Centralia mine fire has been approved to stay separate from Centralia" (above) and "RfC Consent was reached." (here). Leo, buddy, I don't know if it's the heat from the underground fire or what, but the ice that you're skating on is getting awfully thin – I, for one, am getting tired of your deceptive and disruptive behavior.
And Barek, an important correction: Leo split the article and created Centralia mine fire on April 20, despite the objections of numerous editors. His continued systematic dismantling of Centralia is what prompted the RfC. By "systematic dismantling", take this example: "We need more info on the Centralia mine fire page to make it a worthwhile article. Therefore, less on this page." So, there's an important correction: having failed to achieve consensus to support his action, the articles revert back to the previous consensus of a single article, per policy at WP:NOCONSENSUS. Grollτech (talk)15:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of what caused the RfC to be started (I'm the one who started it, as well as being the one who initiated the SPI); to be fair to Leoesb1032, it looks like I'm the only one who posted at Talk:Centralia, Pennsylvania to dispute the split prior to my starting the RfC (at which point others obviously commented). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, when I restructured my second paragraph, I forgot to move the phrase about the "important correction", and I didn't intend to instruct you on your own input. The "important" difference I was pointing out was that by reaching WP:NOCONSENSUS to support Leo's bold edit, policy dictates "retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" (emphasis added). In other words, back to a single article, which, until that bold self-serving edit, had enjoyed an 11-year consensus as a single article.
I confess that you have me completely stumped as to the importance of the fact that you were the only one to object before the RfC? Your objection to the split was impressively immediate, yet he glibly blew you off and pressed on, despite the policy of WP:CONSENSUS. So while the rest of us were just standing there, stunned, with our lower jaw scraping the floor, you took action. Why does that confer any special deference towards his deliberate deception, disruption, and admitted intent to decimate the primary article so as to bolster his own "creation" (using that term loosely)? And he's not done – he has already announced his intent to remove most of the photos, and there's still plenty of content to hijack from the soon-to-be shell of a page.
I'm sure you recall why he initiated the split in the first place, but for those playing along at home, I'll refresh everyone's memory: This saga actually started on April 18–19, when User:68.84.125.66 violated WP:3RR (I think he tried 4 or 5 times, actually) trying to add unsourced POV (only now is it sourced) to the main article. Several editors reverted, thus reinforcing the earlier consensus. He then created Leoesb1032, advanced his POV in his own article, and moved content so his surrounded it with content that he swiped from the main page, just so that his page wouldn't get deleted.
I think everyone has been more than fair, doing nothing about his 5RR, doing nothing when he impersonated an admin, and doing nothing when he again violated 3RR by while page-blanking his sockpuppet investigation (of all things)! I thought he added a nice touch today when he tried to run to another admin for protection. Grollτech (talk)02:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just blocked Leoesb1032 for a month for long-term process disruption and misrepresentation of others' comments. DMacks (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"But, Mom! Dad said it's OKAAAAY!" "Oopsie! Lil' boy fall down – go boom!" Thanks for that, DMacks, much appreciated. Ya know, even though I knew full well that he'd do it yet again (I'm sure we all knew) – but after engaging my caps-lock key so hard that I'll have that bruise on my leg for at least a week – I decided to get up, walk outside, and have a cigarette or three instead.... ok, ok, I admit it, I really had to walk off that charley horse, LOL! Grollτech (talk)18:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leoesb1032, if you're still following this page: my comment that the merge tags should be removed was solely based and entirely dependent on your information that "the article Centralia mine fire has been approved to stay separate from Centralia" ... however, as it appears that no such official closure ever took place as you had indicated, it follows that the tags should not be removed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking
You cannot have a section under stalking that covers Gang Stalking as simply a delusion of mental disturbed individuals as it is now. This is a real phenomenon on the rise and the mentioned section sites information that is 20 years old for a phenomenon that is only coming to climax in the past several years.
There are reports from organizations like Fox News which are harder to find now due to large gang stalking groups scrubbing the info.
Either way it is not right to cover Gang Stalking at all if it is simply going to be passed off as a mental condition. This is false and if there is an argument on how to cover it there should be NOTHING listed until it is sorted out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedwelsh (talk • contribs) 18:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated on your talk page, this subject has been discussed extensively at talk:stalking, and the current sourced content is a result of consensus on that talk page. If you disagree with that consensus, talk:stalking is the place to bring up your concerns. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fox source
I will post my article here then first. You mention it is not backed by a reputable source. Fox News last time I checked qualifies as this. Are you saying Fox News is not a reliable source? Or further the police officer they interviewed? Your actions make a mockery of Wikipedia for credible information if you censor valid and backed posts with baseless accusations. Here is my article please review for your records:
===Gang Stalking===
A January 2011 report on a Fox News affiliate covered a local man who was "Gang Stalked" or "Community Stalked" by a large number of people in his geographical area. Reportedly eventually leading to him having to sell his house and move locations due to the illegal pressures of the group. [1] A police officer in the report commented that while Gang Stalking has been around for a long time it is becoming much more prevalent due to the rise of technology and that groups will use to conduct these illegal activities.
Nakedwelsh (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The listed source does not call it "community stalking", says he claims it to have happened, does not state the police confirmed it, it states he claims it was by his neighbors, it does not state he eventually sold his house or moved only that he claims to be planning to do so, etc. I tried cleaning it up once ([4]) to only what was directly supported in the listed source; but the original wording was restored, so I purged the material in full so it can be discussed to a more appropriate and sourced wording before being restored again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the gentleman stalked the police officer does say that it exists. As mentioned in the "forum" Mobbing covers it here: only there should be a reference to the other names for it which are Gang Stalking, Group Mobbing, Community Stalking, and Group Stalking.
I have no opinion on if the other article should be linked - I'll leave that up to those with a bigger interest in the subject. My edits have solely been related to meeting Wikipedia policy requirements; I'll leave the content disputes up to those with a stronger interest in the subject to develop a consensus.
As to the anonymous IP - it appears to be from someone who earlier tried twice to add some alternate text to the article. They appear to be posting encouragement for you, not intentionally trying to harass you; but if you view it as an unwelcome post or as harassment, feel free to remove their comments from your talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To your previous comment the source as Fox News does indeed call it Gang Stalking which seems to be the big stickler in this issue and honestly I can't understand why. It is called that and that's a fact. I'm not sure why there is any push from higher ups to circumvent the fact that Mobbing is also called Gang Stalking. Whoever "they" are they don't want Gang Stalking labelled as anything other than a delusional condition so apparently they consider themselves PHD qualified in the control of this information. As for the IP user mentioned when did they try to edit it? Today? Since I seem to be the only one making changes and posts about this since May 1st I find it hard to believe it is not related to my debate about this issue with you and the other moderators. In fact it probably was a moderator which doesn't bother me, but is rather cowardly. So yes I would consider a backhanded compliment like that harassment in relation to it coming midst the middle of this debate and disscussion.Nakedwelsh (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed the article did not call it gang stalking - the issue was that your addition contained much more than what was in the article. Re-read my statement above.
Yes, the IP edited the article twice today (both times they were reverted). You can see their edit history at Special:Contributions/108.17.79.180. Their edits can also be seen by clicking the "history" link at the top of the article page. Please be more careful about the facts in the future before making false implications of who originated a perceived harassing comments to you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
Thank you for blocking the guy who was vandalising my talk page. I was no longer on Huggle so it was annoying to have to keep on warning him. 10metreh (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why were the links inserted inappropriate for Wikipedia? They follow all of the Wikipedia guidelines, and they add value to the articles. You seem to have removed the links, but left the content that i added? If you feel very strongly about removing my links, i'd like the ocntent I added to those pages removed as well. The Online_casino page was asking for "additional citations for verification", so this is basically what I did.
It cannot be disputed that the links that I provided, even though they were opinions, show that the spelling is 'disputed,' after all, what else is a dispute, if not a difference of opinion? I also pointed to a later reference in the original entry, which shows that the Oxford English Dictionary states that barbecue is "often misspelled as barbeque"
All the Oxford dictionary indicates is that it is sometimes spelled differently (which the article already reflects), not that a controversy exists. Interpreting opinions and forum postings to mean a controversy exists is original research. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguing an irrelevant semantic distinction. First, a spelling can't be wrong if it is not also different; and as the Oxford definition states, the alternate is often used - acknowledging the alternate spelling does exist and is in use. Furthermore, regardless of which way the Oxford definition is interpreted (wrong or different), it doesn't support calling it a controversy. The etymology section already spells it out and there's no need to provide undue weight to the variant by adding emphasis in the lead section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: I was looking at this again today, and noticed that the online Oxford English Dictionary no longer mentions barbeque as being a misspelling (according to archive.org, their site removed that mention sometime between Sept 2012 and May 2013). I'll start a discussion at Talk:Barbecue about the dictionary entry. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Bad Check Restitution
Barek -
I'n not sure what the problem is. For several years, I had a link in this article to my web page, which provided consumer information that was too lengthy for the article and is not available anywhere else. When I changed the link to a revised web page about a month ago, you removed the link as inappropriate.
The article contains a somewhat lengthy description of a vacated trial verdict in a case that has been going on for 12 years. I made revisions to provide an objective description of the litigation landscape in this area. You removed my revisions but allowed a 4-paragraph entry about a temporary victory by a defendant which was rendered moot when the verdict was vacated.
The article contains a footnote reference, "NSF Fees", that is a link to a completely uninformative add for collection agencies.
Please let me know the problem. As the article now stands, it present a highly inaccurate picture of the litigation in this area.
I looked at the web page again. There are several "citation needed" entries. I can provide those citations, but they are going to come back to links, such as court decisions, that can be accessed through my web site. There doesn't seem to be any point if you have decided that you are you going to block anything that links to my web site.
I have limited time this week to respond, and had planned to do so this weekend when I could provide better feedback; but, here's a short (rushed) answer.
There are multiple issues here. First, there's the problem of the clear WP:COI that exists in your use of your own website. And second, some links, such as the FAQ which you added, fail WP:EL criteria for external links in that they are promotional in nature, soliciting business. Even the links to information about the cases contain considerable promotional material and fail WP:RS criteria.
There's no issue in improving the content - but you would be better off using public and free databases of the cases. In most cases, there are databases that contain the material - even some courts maintain these. Worst case, scholar.google.com can be used to find links. Lastly, remember that the articles are not about the cases - at most, the article should only summarize the issues and/or judicial decisions that impact the subject of the article, not be a walk-through of active case developments. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I'll try to figure out what you're talking about and revise accordingly. I still don't understand why you are allowing the "NSF Fees" link, which is nothing but an ad., and why you are willing to include the vacated jury verdict, which is nothing but a defendant saying, "I had a one good day in twelve years, but the judge erased it." I also don't know how to get free links to judicial decisions. I have to pay for mine, or get them from PACER which is a pay site that is not feasible for someone who just wants to look at on case.
Hi, I am one of the newest ( and most idiotic ) Wikipedia editors. I'd like to ask what you must do to become an administrator.
go to user talk:0alx0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0alx0 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Information can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming an administrator. In short, the process involves a nomination process throgh a Request for Adminship (RfA) during which candidates have their past edits reviewed, are posed questions, and in which the community weighs in on their belief of if the candidate is fit and/or adequately experienced, and if the candidate has a firm enough understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
It can be a grueling process, as every edit from the user is effectively placed under a microscope. It's best to review existing (both current and past) RfA applications to understand what it is that the community wants to see in candidates, what has tripped up other candidates, etc. That can allow you to prepare yourself better for eventually pursuing the process. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Barek:, I just noticed the above question, and couldn't help but draw a parallel to this question asked of another admin by Leoesb1032 just a few days earlier. Intrigued, I looked further at 0alx0's contribs, and notice that the user account was created on June 16, 2013 at 14:14, a mere 3 hours after @DMacks: blocked him, and only 2 hours before leaving you the above message.
0alx0 quickly went about disruption left and right, as evidenced by the tremendous quantity of warning templates accumulated on that user's talk page in just a few short hours. 0alx0 continued exhibiting somewhat familiar behavior, including removal of unfavorable tags and blanking his talk page.
Arguably, while the above is compelling, it is nevertheless circumstantial evidence. But then, I noticed one more thing: 45 minutes after leaving the above question on your page, he edited the "Baren" page, and I recall that he has referred to you as "Baren" on at least one occasion from one of his accounts (I'm still looking for that edit). To me, personally, that eliminated any doubt that 0alx0 was created in order to circumvent User:DMacks's latest block, but a checkuser would prove or disprove that more definitively.
Curiously, this user experimented with two failed attempts (1st attempt and 2nd attempt) to block himself! I can think of no good faith reason one would attempt to "learn the art of blocking" unless one intends try to:
use the technique on another user, or
"un-use" the technique on a blocked sock.
Thankfully, he's attempting the impossible, but either way, no good can come of such continued attempts at gaming the system. Shortly thereafter, 0alx0 abandoned that account – no doubt, he has gone on to create several more by now. By his own admission and usage, we know that his IP address is 68.84.125.66; it is reasonable to believe that the rest of his socks will also be associated with that IP. I don't know the right way to go about requesting a checkuser, but I think that tool should be used to confirm whether or not he has in fact been creating additional socks. Thoughts? —Grollτech(talk)00:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up. I don't recall Leoesb1032 calling me "Baren" previously, but I could have easily missed it. Looking at the edit history of 0alx0, I'm not seeing any overlap with common articles edited by Leoesb1032 - so for now I think linking of the two appears too circumstantial. If you want, you could still try submitting a case at WP:SPI; but it may get thrown out if there's not enough evidence to justify the use of the tools.
I had been aware of the IP; but since the block that IP appears to have only been used to edit talk:Leoesb1032. As long as he only edits his own talk page from the IP, it can be argued that he just forgot to sign in and is not circumventing the block by using it (although if he does edit a different page from the IP while the block is still in place, that would be a block evasion violation). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, this time I really am not sockpuppeting and I have no idea who this new user guy is. I know I'm not supposed to edit pages besides my talk page with my IP while I'm blocked, I just wanted you to know that I learned my lesson and I wouldn't ever do sockpuppetry again so I would really appreciate it if everyone could cut me some slack about editing this page while I'm blocked. Again, the only reason I'm doing this is so everyone knows I'm not a sockpuppet again. 68.84.125.66 (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barek. Given that this user has agreed to stop posting external links, would you be amenable to my unblocking him? The unblock would, naturally, reiterate a prohibition on linking to his site again, with the understanding that any future infringements would be grounds for an immediate indefblock with little chance of appeal. Your thoughts? Yunshui雲水09:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hesitant given their only behavior to date has been to add the link; but I'm open to giving them a chance to contribute constructively to Wikipedia given the conditions you mentioned. Feel free to use your own best judgement on unblocking. Should you unblock the user, I'll also make a posting to their talk page re: WP:COI to help them understand those concerns as well, given they now acknowledge it is their own website. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question on correct use (if any) of hidden-HTML-comments within articles
Hi Barek, given these three policy statements --
1. all hidden-HTML-comments, no matter how terse, are Bad(tm) -- always use the talk-page
2. if the edit-war situation warrants, a single neutral "check talk-page before editing" hidden-HTML-comment is okay
3. too many hidden-HTML-comments constitutes clutter, but one or two brief (non-generic-template) hidden-HTML-comments are okay
What is the Official Wikipedia policy, if any? Failing that, is there unwritten consensus among admins? Failing *that*, what's your personal recommendation? Thanks for your guidance. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
now that the Albert Pyun page is no longer protected:
I dont understand your message. I did NOT add that information or that crap (radio is it?) link. I only came over to undo it. I put a cite needed tag up so we can get a better source from others. It was only later I realised it was an unreliable source That was me mate. I have created a history section where this stuff, with RS of course is drafted. I would appreciate a retraction re the citation point, on my talkpage. Cheers Irondome (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read your post. I apologise. Yoyu were not accusing me of putting that crap cite on. However I did leave,in good faith the cite up. I didnt think it would be utter BS. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Barek,
I'm looking for a backup copy and restoration of the entry for OpenBroadcaster. I set up a Creative commons licence on openbroadcaster.com and released the logo into the public domain. I recieved lots of positive feedback on this article about community radio in a box.
RadioRobYukon (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The text in the article was a cut/paste from www.openbroadcaster.com, which is a copyright violation, so we are unable to restore the article text at this time. The site does now show a creative commons license[5]; but the infringing text is no longer on that site. As a result, the text is still subject to the license in place at the time it existed on the site.[6]
I would also recommend that you review WP:COI, specifically the section "Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest" - as you have a close association to the subject, that article can provide pointers for working within the Wikipedia systems and provide guidance to avoid issues that can potentially cause problems with your submittals.
Additionally, even if not for the copyright issue, it's unlikely that the article as it was written would meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria WP:CORP. What are needed are multiple third-party reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. Trivial or incidental coverage is unlikely to meet the threshold. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hypercarnivore Article
Pelicans are hypercarnivores. In fact, out of all the animals that are notable for being hypercarnivores, pelicans are probably the most notable for being hypercarnivores, due to their cultural significance for being known as hypercarnivores. On the other hand, not all sharks are hypercarnivores. Many species are not even regular carnivores. Two of the most notable sharks, the basking and the whale, are not hypercarnivores. They are in fact filter feeders. 71.255.81.232 (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I should not have labelled it vandalism. However, I still disagree with adding them to the page. It's not intended to be a complete list, and what is there currently are more than adequately representative. As the sharks, the list already says "most sharks" (emphasis added), so it's not claiming all sharks.
Mint did lose a lot of data in July of 2012. I don't have a specific news article to cite because they have tried to avoid letting people find out. I'm undoing your undo because the change I made was undoing a change someone else made. If you would like to make suggestions for how you would like me to cite this, suggest away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warzinski (talk • contribs) 18:06, 5 July 2013
Wikipedia has policies and guidelines that require material be verifiable and supported by reliable sources (see WP:V and WP:RS) - note that forum postings and personal blogs generally do not meet the threshold of being a reliable source for Wikipedia. Using your own first-hand claims would be original research, and is not a valid source to support material in an article (see WP:NOR). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the statement by the Mint Rep:
"Due to the way historical account balances are stored, we are unable to include balance history in Trends reports for some closed accounts. We have fixed this problem going forward, however I’m sorry to say we cannot fix it retroactively. That means you will not be able to see the balance history for those closed accounts in Assets, Debts, and Net Worth “Over Time” reports."
That is more than thanking people for feedback.
Also, I'm not sure how to add comments to your talk page as responses. If there is an easy way to do it, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warzinski (talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 July 2013
There is only one post on that page flagged as coming from an "Official Rep", and that is the last post on the thread. The post you are referencing is not similarly flagged - it may be from someone official, but it is not flagged as such which makes it not-verifiable as official, and therefore does not meet Wikipedia requirements for being used as a source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note also, even if that post can be verifiably identified as coming from an official rep, all it would support is the one sentence that there was a loss of data related to balance history for some closed accounts; the claims of it raising questions and the claim of their not responding would still be original research. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you're right, that first one isn't flagged as official rep. I'll try finding a valid citation again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warzinski (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 July 2013
If you can find an official statement or any type of news coverage, it would be good to include the criticism. The problem is that, especially for negative criticism, we need reliable sources to support the statements. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-opening
Hello Barek, I don't know if you saw the messege on my talk page but I want to request that my sockpuppet case be re-opened. Please leave me a messege on my talk page as soon as you can. Sorry for editing while I'm blocked but I thought this was important. 68.84.125.66 (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC) (Leoesb1032)[reply]
Note: posting outside your user talk page while the block remained in effect may result in the IP being blocked as well. I will leave that for uninvolved parties to review. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quiznos
Not sure how the new edits were not neutral. Especially the company information. The Greg McDonald and other key people are no longer with the company.
Also Quiznos is not a fast food restaurant. It is a QSR or Quick service restaurant. Which are two different things in the Restaurant industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyljoe (talk • contribs) 20:22, 8 July 2013
The distinction between "fast-food" and "quick service" is purely marketing puffery. Wikipedia even uses the same article for both.
Likewise, the wording change to the first paragraph is pure marketing hype - not even remotely appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. I have restored the changes you made to the key people field, as that needed to be updated. For the remaining change, the article should use the logo as it appears on the official website - not the trimmed version you were inserting. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
dewitt iowa
Have you tried googling her name? Im reasonably sure thats notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.0.233 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 9 July 2013
There were multiple issues. First, Wikipedia is not an internet directory - we're simply not the appropriate place to develop directories of websites. Second, in our external links guideline, it mentions that blogs are rarely appropriate. The particular blog was also highly promotional - basically a blog front-end for an advertisement - which is also not appropriate link for an encyclopedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thesalarypeople.com
salary and wage removal of referral. Well I certainly disagree that the adding of a site referral there was linkspam. The site mentioned is not exploitative nor ad driven, simply a way to try to make salaries transparent. Yet, I can understand that wikipedia should not be used to display a single product but refer to the abstract ideas. Hmmm.....Interesting dilemma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martingerv (talk • contribs) 02:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are trying to edit the Edmonton Public Schools wikipedia page after months of inactivity. The information contained on the page is out of date and needs to be reviewed.
Although the Schools section did contain redundant information, you did not give us ample enough time to edit out that same information from the Size section.
Had you edited out the redundant material from the "Size"section, it would have only been one sentence - and the new section would contain no material that was new. The the only difference between the two sections was that the "Size" section also mentioned the 2011-2012 operating budget amount - otherwise, the two sections were completely redundant. Also, the "Size" section contained references, while the added redundant material omitted those. I understand the need to update; but in this case it would be better to re-phrase the "Size" section rather than inserting an unsourced replacement section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My edit
I wasn't entirely clear what the user was doing as it seemed the items were referenced; It had also been undone by another user. I do appreciate you explaining it as sometimes it is hard to tell. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I know the IP had previously been adding material to the lead section that doesn't belong there (although, that material may be appropriate in the body of the article); but the subsequent edits had just been to clean-up the refs. When you reverted them, I was wondering if you saw something else that I was missing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this ... it seems to be an article of a category you are monitoring or which you have edited very many times. I tried to edit some things in the past from another account but you did not let me. You even banned my account for trying to add some external links multiple times. Now there is a guy that keeps spamming this category to add bad content about a certain company and add a backlink to his website. His name is Rharrias99, and he keeps editing this article every now and then to add backlinks to casinolistings.com . Please take some measure about this issue. See the article's revision history from "06:59, 22 July 2013" and see what he added. You will understand what I mean. See all his revisions about the "Online_casino" article and see that everytime he keeps adding bad content about that certain company and a backlink to casinolistings. I am waiting for your reply to see if you will do something against this and what you will do. Remember, that you banned my other account for trying to add external links several times to that article. See user "frederic47". ((talk) 10:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This issue already appears to be getting discussed at User talk:Bonadea#Report spam. If I have any additional comments beyond what has been said over there, I'll make them at that page. Discussions are easier to follow when they are consolidated in one place, rather than spread over multiple pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Steven Moffat
Barek, thanks for the speedy and decisive handling of the vandals on Steven Moffat. I've also left a filing on WP:RPP; would you consider taking a peek at it? This is such a long-running problem that a significant period of page protection is the only way to deter it. --Drmargi (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I re-protected for 1 year. The prior protection I had applied expired just a day or two ago, and the disruption began again almost immediately, so clearly an ongoing issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That should do it. I asked for more than I expected to get at RPP. As you said, it's just come off three months, but the tumblr brigade just won't stop. By the time the semi is over, Eleven will have regenerated into Twelve and we'll be in a new generation of stories. That should be sufficient reason for them to have moved on, or at least one can hope. Thanks! --Drmargi (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you saw this, but the auto-protect on that article expired, and now you've got a string of edits by IP users that are very suspect, especially in that they use a website called Vimulator. I can't find evidence that it sources specifications correctly or produces accurate tested figures. Sacxpert (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removing of external link at Hotel Reservation Page.
Hi Barek, i noticed you had removed a few links that i added. I'm new to wikipedia hence i write to you to understand what is the right way to do this - added software vendor list of hotel reservation system.
The article is about systems, feel free to improve the quality of the article content. However, Wikipedia is not an internet directory of systems, and shouldn't be used to advertise links to those systems. Please see WP:EL, which is the external link guideline that can provide further guidance. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IP stuff
Thanks for protecting Jenns, and could you review and restore this edit? It's an example, albeit from Facebook, for another IP who didn't believe the stuff about being a contraction of Jennings. Is there a way to protect my Talk page for a while from other IPs but let me still edit it? 72.37.249.60 (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the link fails WP:EL inclusion criteria, and should not be used as an example (neither as a reference nor as an external link). The current version of the page is appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AAA Excellence.jpg revert
While there is no source, I can guarantee that is the logo at Buford High School. I am a student there. This is about the only Wikipedia page that I edit because I am completely sure that the information is factual. No where on the website does it say "official logo," but that's it! Trust me, man. I'm just trying to improve the page of my school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirCadogon4 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 9 August 2013
What someone claims to know as the truth is irrelevant - what is required is a reliable source in order to meet Wikipedia's requirement on verifiability. Per Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DEARBORN HIGH SCHOOL INFORMATION
hello. have been editing on wikipedia but am reasonable new to it. Information that was entered has been changed or removed. Reasons ? Perhaps needs accuracy or source citation ? What kind of source citations does WIKIPEDIA need to accept information ?Information about the school's programs, which is quite accurate, should be on the page. Not to promote the school but to clearly represent it's background and history. Please advise on what kind of source citations you need.
thanks, (Wolvie2 (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)) August 9, 2013[reply]
In general, a published source from a third-party (ie: published neither by the school no the editor writing the article) should be used as a reference to support the stated text. For some basic statistics about the school such as location, number of employees or students, school colors, etc can usually be sourced to the school itself; but extraordinary claims of awards and accomplishments are best sourced to third-parties. Some such sources can be newspapers, books, the agency or organization that issued an award, etc. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of Glenn Wichman
I believe Glenn Wichman to be notable as defined in the Creative professionals section of WP:Notability (people). Here are a couple links I found. You may be correct that the game is what is notable, but as one of the creators, I don't think it is asking too much for him to be to be included in a list.
If there are sources about him (not just a trivial mention listing his name as one of the developers), then I would agree that he would meet the notability threshold. I can't follow the links above - but if they are about him, then once the links are fixed those would be adequate sources to attach to the listing in the article to establish him as notable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the links. One of the links is a bio, and the other shows him as a co-author of a book. I can keep digging if you don't think this is enough.--Asher196 (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dearborn High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breakfast at Tiffanys (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Barak,
I noticed that you recently removed an article update for residential elevators. Is it possible for you to explain the rationale behind the removal of content? If you would like to discuss the content specifically, I would appreciate your input. The modification was meant to clarify the ASME position on residential elevators, and clarify the previous paragraph which says residential elevators may be less safe. Additionally, the Visilift elevator system, while associated with a brand, is unique and available only for this application. The intent was to inform that there is a type of elevator which was not previously discussed in any content on the elevator page.
I removed the content for two reasons - first, it was unsourced. Please try to find thrid-party reliable sources (trade journals, news articles, etc). The other issue was that the phrasing appeared to be highly promotional, and did not meet the Wikipedia policy for being written from a neutral point of view. As it would require a fundamental re-write to purge the promotional tone, as well as being unsourced, I removed the content until those issues could be addressed and the material re-written. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked this user for vandalism in 2011. They are now asking to be unblocked. After all this time I am inclined to just hand them the WP:ROPE and see what they do with it. Checking with you as blocking admin first. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine - feel free to unblock (although I won't do it myself). Hopefully the user is now inclined to be a constructive contributor; and if not, they can always be blocked again later if needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Citation removed from Human resource management system
Hi Barek. A couple of weeks ago I added a citation to the wiki about Human Resources Management System (HRMS) to the section about what currently HR management systems encompass. There was a citation request on that page for a while so the HR software company I work for wrote an article on their blog offering more information about different modules and contrasting several HRMS on the market. Could you please let me know why did you remove the citation? Do you feel there's something more we could add to that article to improve it? Thanks a lot for your time. I'll be looking forward to your reply. Mary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvinchy (talk • contribs) 09:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the page, while containing some useful information, is also written as an advertisement for breatheHR. It would be better to find sources from either scholarly sources and/or trade publications that would better represent a neutral point of view. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fibromyalgia Lead
The Problem is according to the guidelines the lead should contain a summary if its controversial. But the article not only cites the same information, and repeats it virtually verbatim. If the controversy section were deleted I wouldn't have a problem since its basically the same information, or if the header section was an actuall summary I wouldn't have issue either. I am unaware of any other article like it under Wikipedia, which does lead me and obviously others to question the neutrality of how it is presented in both the header as well as in the article under its own subheading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repairwiki (talk • contribs) 21:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is supposed to be a summary of the full article, including the controversy section, per WP:LEAD. Including mention of the controversy has been discussed before at talk:Fibromyalgia - and while changes have been made to it, it has always been agreed to remain. Discussion to determine if consensus has changed belongs on the article talk page, which is why I posted a link on your talk page to the discussion I started at talk:Fibromyalgia#Controversy in the lead section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
online video comparisons
Barek,
I added to the page on online video comparisons because it's incomplete and out of date. I don't understand how my addition was inappropriate for an encyclopedia when every other listing on that page is exactly like the one I added. There are several online video companies missing from that list and my addition was only the first of several that need to be added.
Please let me know what the appropriate way to add to that compendium of companies is and I'll go that route.
The other entries on the list have been demonstrated to meet Wikipedia's guideline of notability as defined at WP:N and/or WP:CORP. I'm not saying your entry is not notable, only that it has not as yet been demonstrated to meet the requirements of notability as set out in those guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Northwest Registered Agent links
Hi Barek,
This is Northwest Registered Agent LLC. I got an email from a Wikipedia user about you. We have a lot of free legal forms that law firms and clients use. As such, they have gotten a lot of mentions on Wikipedia over the years. We don't really understand how this works, but it appears that a competitor of ours from Carson City Nevada, based on that IP address went around and tried to get mentions of ours off of Wikipedia and then tried to put them all back, and now you're involved? I'm looking at some of these talk pages and it appears that people think it's advertising. The forms aren't for sale, so how is it advertising? I'm looking at the 501c3 page. We get a LOT of nonprofit associations and organizations that use our articles. We actually have the only website page out there that has non profit articles available that have 501c3 language in them. The articles are free to download, without any request of information. So how is that spam or advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northwestregisteredagent (talk • contribs) 00:18, 16 August 2013
As has been mentioned in the past, the entire web site is promotional. The links fail both as references (see WP:RS) as well as failing to meet Wikipedia's guideline for external links (see WP:EL). Users who have claimed to represent your site have been told this many times already, I see records of discussions going back to 2009, with various Wikipedia users attempting to explain why the links are not appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing is crazy. We have a huge website. People refer to it all the time. Some web guy in Carson City tries to damage us here, then tries to fix it. This is my first time using Wikipedia and we set up an account, and I have a message saying our user account name doesn't even comply with you. Hey how legit is this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_agent
Looks like it's written as an entire advertisement for a couple registered agent companies. Looks like there's been 10 or 15 others that have tried to get more people on there. Seems like a bunch of hypocrisy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northwestregisteredagent (talk • contribs) 23:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
references removed from Herbert W Armstrong page
I recently made some changes to the Page "[2]" with references that pertained to what was being said. They were FACTS. Neutral, pro, or negative, Facts are facts. Is there someway to keep the changes, if they were properly referenced? And how would I go about making it proper?TheTjKit (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)TheTjKit[reply]
External Link
Barek,
I received your message that you deleted an external link for property searches on the Colorado Springs site. I saw that you allowed an external link to another agent's relocation site and felt that a property search link would be helpful as well. Sorry for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nam4810 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the main reason for the reverting was the edits of a sock of a blocked editor, now that editor has in turned be blocked, I think that the protection can be returned to semi. LGAtalkedits06:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently have stepped away, and it's time for me to go to bed. I've returned the article to semiprotection.—Kww(talk) 07:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kww - thank you for identifying the source of the disruption and for resetting the protection level for the page. I had stayed online for a while after protecting; but not long enough it appears. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
World Tomorrow
The producers of the show changed the title card from "The World Tomorrow" to simply "The Julian Assange Show" in lieu of a lawsuit for infringement filed by The World Tomorrow Evangelistic Association of Sevierville Tennessee.
Although promos ran initially in many RT markets under their planned program name of "The World Tomorrow", the title was changed just prior to the first episode airing to "The Julian Assange Show". Therefore, the current Wikipedia article is once again reflecting erroneous and false information with your re-edit because the program never aired anywhere - in any market - as "The World Tomorrow", or "World Tomorrow". All 26 episodes aired in every market under the title card "The Julian Assange Show".
A quick phone call on your part to RT television and the production company will help you verify this, and clear up the error. As it stands now, the article coming up under a false banner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wv859 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To this day, the show website carries the program under the title World Tomorrow, which is the title under which it was produced and initially released. It had the title card modified for distribution by RT. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you think the content I changed isn't verifiable. I've added the musicians that are on the albums already listed on the page. How do you want me to prove this? They are minor edits, I added no new information. Just expanded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thespace44 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to WP:BLP, I should be removing much more of the content, as it is all currently unsourced. Please see Wikipedia's policy on verifiability as well as our guideline on reliable sources for information on how to identify appropriate sources to support content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Citation removed from Human resource management system II
Hi Barek. Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. Do you think it would be possible to add the citation if we rewrite the article, adding quotes and data from scholarly sources/trade publications and removing any bits that would come across as sales pitchy? Mary. --Mvinchy (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that would resolve the issue, but it would at least improve the possibility. If you do rewrite the article on your site, we can then bounce the link over to a Wikipedia noticeboard to get additional established editors to review at that point. It is tricky though; it needs to be written in a way that eliminates promotional wording, and presents material from reliable sources in a neutral manner - while at the same time not being a simple middle-man to those other sources (if that were the case, those sources would be better for supporting the material on Wikipedia directly rather than using a middle man article). Which, incidentally, the Wikipedia article could benefit from using additional such sources (scholarly sources/trade publications).
Logical Cowboy, Barek, NeilN, Apparition11
Each of you have edited either Bed or Bed frame during 2013. In December 2012, User:Andrewman327 requested that Bed frame be merged into Bed. I opposed the merger. No other comments have been made since then. Based on your multiple prior edits, would you do us the favor of responding to the proposal. If a consensus develops would someone close the request after a short period of time. Thanks.__SBaker43 (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Valley line and Festival Line
Please restore the pages you deleted. Please do not do it again and make it so that it can't be removed. I had to search a lot to find out how to make these templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingeroscar (talk • contribs) 15:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the stations do not yet exist, and based on talk page discussions there is not yet consensus to add them. Please note that continually editing against consensus can potentially result in either the templates being protected against being re-created, or your account being blocked. Short answer, get consensus first before recreating the templates. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they are suffering from WP:IDHT. They also appear to be engaging in some low-level Wikilawyering - attempting to reference other policies as reasons they should not be blocked, while totally ignoring the one that spells out the reason, and which has been linked for them several times. Their other posts to Jimbo's talk page as well as their starting of an MfD makes it clear this is someone familiar with Wikipedia and it's policies.
That said, their editing of their own talk page isn't (yet) to the threshold of blocking their ability to edit their own talk page - although they might get to that point if they continue down the path they are on. That said, I'm likely going to bed soon - so it'll be up to another admin to change the block settings if it becomes necessary. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've also warned the user of the possibility of losing their talk page access due to repeated frivolous unblock requests - I was stunned to see the most recent one claim the block was WP:IAR - IDHT indeed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason User:SFK2 wasn't blocked for edit warring and the rest of those reverting the anonymous editor weren't reprimanded for inappropriate use of the revert tool? RyanVesey16:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — SFK2 did step over the WP:3RR line, but only by a single edit. I think given the rash of disruptive editing conducted by 88.104.27.75 last night, this offense is completely forgivable. At some point or another, I think we've all crossed 3RR accidentally in an effort to squelch persistent or extreme vandalism. Since the violation was purely good-faith and not meant to be disruptive, I say we give SFK2 a pass.DKqwerty17:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? SFK2 and others were using rollback inappropriately on edits that were certainly not vandalism. Have you looked at the content of what was being warred over? The anon was removing highly promotional unsourced, unencyclopedic information that was later determined to be copyvio. RyanVesey18:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I stopped monitoring the anon.'s contributions (and subsequent reverts) after it was made clear (s)he was editing under WP:POINT and WP:IDHT. My comment was made just from looking at SFK2's edit history, so the nuances were lost. Sorry for that, and I've striked my comments. DKqwerty18:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Ryan wants to play to defend this IP editor, he has to justify this, this, and especially this. You can't remove the cast of a film because it is "unsourced" especially if the film exists and it was released three years ago. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions.18:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me why my link to an officIal video guide to the Canongate was reverted? I don't understand what qualifications the other links have that a link to an HD video shot in 2013 of the Canongate doesn't?
There were two issues. First, they were added as external links, which goes against Wikipedia's guideline on the use of external links (see WP:EL). And second, they two links currently fail Wikipedia's guideline on notability (see WP:WEB) - note, this is not saying that they are not notable, only that third-party sources have not yet been provided that can demonstrate that the sites do meet the threshold of that guideline. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I realized after the fact that I should have created articles rather than linking sites. Quick question though, what kind of third party source would be acceptable for creating an article for a news organization. I'll take a look at the articles for other news sources for reference as well. Thanks again. Sorry for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanetoday (talk • contribs) 19:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources can take multiple forms: news articles about the organization, journalism award sites, articles about it in trade journals, etc. For more detail on what qualifies as a reliable source, you can review WP:RS; or, if you have sources but are not sure if the would qualify, you can ask about those sources at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barek, I'm new to Wikipedia editing and was wondering if I could get a little more feedback as to why my link was inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I'm taking a course in grad school and just learning to do Wiki-editing, so any feedback would be much appreciated.
Hi Barek
"HistoryofIran" user vandalism in Lurs and Luristan page.
He remove All Historical images and "Lur people of iran" map no valid reason.
I ask you to stop doing this "HistoryofIran" user.
I was considering taking both of them to ANI. The articles they are edit-warring on are a mess. However, I discovered that Setenlyacc ignored my warnings about copyvio and, as I did earlier with HistoryofIran, I have blocked him indefinitely which means he is blocked until we can be sure he understands our copyvio policy and can edit it without breaking it. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New vandal user needs to be be banned immediately
Hi Barek,
I'm not an administrator, but I've been editing Wikipedia for the last 10 years. I just came across a newly created user account which is being systematically used to vandalize numerous articles. Would it be possible for you to please block this user ID? It is at User: Cheesycheesecheese. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, I hope you are still watching over us at Viking River Cruises--you have been so helpful in the past. We have now become Viking Cruises and I am attempting a complicated update, the upshot of which will leave us with a detailed Viking Cruises article and a very short Viking River Cruises article that points users to Viking Cruises for more information (more of a stub than a redirect). I have created the Viking Cruises page in my sandbox and plan to request review for publication but I don't see any way of commenting by way of explanation about what I am doing. If I were a reviewer I would want to know what is up with the Viking Cruises article versus the Viking River Cruises article without having to figure it out myself. What do you suggest is the best way to handle this? Thanks,
Julane (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm travelling this week, and have sporadic access to the internet. I should hopefully be back next week (pending how things go this week).
For faster assistance, to find people who already have an interest in articles about ships and ship-related companies you could contact members of Wikiproject:Ships at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships with a request for assistance; or to contact others who already have an interest in the specific article you could post messages about the planned updates at Talk:Viking River Cruises. Or, for more general assistance, you could try posting at the Wikipedia:Help desk. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Barek; I've placed my explanation at Talk:Viking River Cruises and will request publication of the article. Let's hope this works—I would prefer not to shorten the Viking River Cruises article until the Viking Cruises one is in place but will do so rapidly once that happens. Safe travels!
Julane (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of video sharing sites.
Hi, thanks for changing my mistake. However would mind taking away some of the websites and change it to these 4 only
Without a reason to reduce the list - no, I will not do it for you, and have reverted your second unexplained blanking of most of the entries. Unexplained blanking of entries that appear to meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability and which seem to be appropriate for the section are likely to continue to be reverted. If you disagree, please discuss the list at Talk:List of video hosting services and explain your reasons for believing it should be reduced. If a consensus develops on the talk page to reduce the list, then the removal of the content would be much more likely to remain in place. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that - I saw that the text had been inserted in its current position this week, so thought it was new to the article. I had missed that it had just been moved from where it had been originally inserted at least as far back as 2010. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that there was some rearranging very recently. I think that the text needs to be reworded and properly sourced, and I will continue to work on the article. Let me know if you have any other ideas regarding this issue and thanks for the quick reply. Alansohn (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Solution? Intermediation?
Hi. You've protected Gyumri. Then can you solve the issue between me and 188.255.44.254? In the talk page we reached the dead end. I claim that this image is significant for this article, because this is a historical image on the postcard of the Russian Empire. Anonimous user 188.255.44.254 gives different absurd arguments. First, he said that this photo is not significant. Then he claimed that this postcard is a fake and is an Azerbaijani postcard (I don't now where he saw Azerbaijani postcard with prerevolution Russian and French descriptions). I think this user just don't want to see any photos of Azerbaijanis in this article. --Interfase (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Barek. I'm new here and hoping to understand why LibreOffice Calc shouldn't be included on the Personal Budget page. LibreOffice has in many ways replaced OpenOffice since the fork in 2010 and the establishment of the Document Foundation. Thank you in advance for guidance (posting this message was somewhat confusing for me. Hopefully this is correct.)
I'm now realizing that the reason for linkspam may have been a link to an external website instead of the Wikipedia article on LibreOffice? If my understanding is correct is it possible to include LibreOffice in the article with the appropriate Wikipedia page link?
Yes, correct - the initial issue was the external link; but the section doesn't really require specific examples anyway - so I've cleaned it up to just link to the generic term and removed all the unnecessary example links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is AhnLabKorea, I read your opinion about the edit I made on the 'AhnLab Inc'page. As a big supporter of Wikipedia, I never meant to abuse soapbox or promotion regulation. However, I don't see any soapbox contents in the page, while other companies have their products and services in detail, awards and other things in their Wiki pages. I just want to update all things. We have a lot of changes in our product and other things, and the number of employee is even wrong. Please let me know exactly what part I violated, then I'll make the change. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhnLabKorea (talk • contribs) 02:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There were a few problems. First, you're removing content that has listed sources and replacing it with unsourced "corrections". Claims about a company need to be verifiable by the use of published reliable sources. The preference is for third-party sources; but for basic data (number of employees, management names/titles, etc). Another problem is the tone of the rewrite. Wikipedia articles need to be presented from a neutral point of view; this means omitting many phrases and buzzwords that are common in marketing puffery. I hope this clears up the reasons for the revert. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About Company Pages.
Sir i feel i have reached a deadlock with an anonymous editor on Voipfone (please see my talk page) and believe that administrative intervention is required.
I have also contacted the company in question about the use of their copyrighted material and they are happy for it to be used by wikipedia, but only if it is re written from a neutral point of view (which is what i originally did) and they have asked if they can add the content that i re wrote to the page themselves but i am unsure of the correct procedure.
If the text is to be used on Wikipedia, read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#For text which explains the steps that must be addressed to get an explicit and what qualifies as verifiable permission (simply claiming they have given it is not sufficient, as people can claim anything).
As to editing the article; representatives of the company would have an obvious conflict of interest, so should propose their changes or updates on the article talk page rather than editing the page directly themselves. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RE: JAYP & JAY-P
hi,
i request to know what sort of significance you seek to know regarding my post you deleted.
This has been more than adequately addressed on your talk page, with links to the reasons as well as the relevant Wikipedia policies and content guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Tfjones1 , your contention that the website 'adds value [for] users' is entirely and purely focussed on giving them a better price for some real-world product. But wikipedia is not a shopping mall, or a price comparison service. Most of the time, articles about products do not even list prices! There is a good reason why, and it is the same reason your links do not belong in wikipedia: they might save users a buck (or they might not since many scams and high-markup middleman certainly exist in the real world). But saving users a buck, by turning wikipedia into a linkfarm and a spam-haven, would kill wikipedia as a reliable encyclopedia, where users go because they want to read the WP:NPOV content, not because they want to browser WP:SPA promo-adverts. They can get *those* almost anyplace on the web, right? Right. If you want some help with reliably sourcing your WP:COI information, you may find my explanations of the process over here useful -- Talk:Dom_(musician). 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
can you protect the page again, same editor edit warring again
You previously protected the page Tribune Entertainment. The same editor is back trying to do the same edits that caused the problem before. I have posted at the wikiproject for businesses asking for more opinions, hoping to get more people involved. Anyway, since two editors have reverted him in the past and discussed this in detail on the talk page, can you tell him to stop edit warring the same thing until he finds at least one reliable source that says what he claims, or finds someone who actually agree with him? Or just protect the proper version of the article until more input can be found? DreamFocus20:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the user is currently blocked - hopefully that will get them to use talk rather than edit war. If they resume edit warring after the block expires, I'll protect the page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(update: traditionally-error-92 but actually-error-50), Comment bot edits from IPs, after clicking SavePage whilst editing meta.wikimedia.org
Greetings, Barek -- sorry to bother you. I'm trying to add my name to a member-list over here, with some comments.[7]
This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed.
If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do.
A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: Comment bot edits from IPs
As you can see, there are already some IPs in the member-list, from mid-2012. Googling for the error message suggests it was added in August 2012 by User:Herbythyme , who has since retired. The rule is also mentioned by User:%C3%89rico_J%C3%BAnior_Wouters on their test-subpage.[8]
(As an aside, I'm interested in how rule#92 is implemented, under the hood, because I'm trying to convince a bot-master their hour-and-hours-later reversion-with-warning would be *way* less WP:BITE if it could be included as part of the captcha process. Do you have such knowledge, of the innards of AbuseFilters, or know who I should ask? But that's not my main question.)
Can you help me get my edits into the page, and preferably, remove the rule-block that causes error 92, so that I will be able to respond if anyone should reply to my commentary?
If not, because en.wiki admin-bit does not transfer to meta.wiki rights, or because you are too busy, or whatever, can you please suggest the name of an admin with the necessary permbits and leisure-time? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Your named popped up in Herbythyme's pre-retirement edit-history, if you were curious why you were picked. You once WP:templar'd me about
Talk:Federal_Reserve_Note, so I recognized your name. I IZ SERIUS ADMNIM, THIZ IZ SERIUS BIZNIS... your cat still makes me laugh. :-) You can reply here if you wish, but I'll be quicker to notice if you reply over on my own talkpage, if that's not too much trouble. Danke
Sorry, I do not have admin rights at Meta - admin rights are specific to only the project on which it was granted. Some admins have requested and been granted that access on multiple projects, but I have not.
I'm not familiar with specific admins at Meta. They do have what appears to be an ANI equivalent at Meta:WM:RFH, where you can request admin assistance on Meta. Also, you mentioned rule #92 - but I searched at both en.wikipedia and at Meta, and neither one seems to have an edit filter with that ID listed as currently active via Special:AbuseFilter. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(TLDR -- mystery solved, thanks for the pointer.) Hmmmm... my bad... I specifically mentioned "error 92" because googling told me that the "Comment bot edits from IPs" errmsg was traditionally assigned #92, and that HerbyThyme was involved. Apparently en.wiki and meta.wiki use their own non-traditional ID-numbering system, since #92 on en.wiki was for protecting wikipedia against the dastardly and devious "Argentina nuclear energy IP hopper" back in the day. Which makes me laugh. :-) Anyways, that particular ID-number was in force for an indeterminate period, here on en.wiki, but deleted back in 2009. I don't have power to say any more: "You may not view details of this filter because it is hidden from public view."[9]
I looked through the entire list of abuse-filters you provided, and could not find "Comment bot edits from IPs" anywhere... but then I noticed (you alluded to this in your reply but I missed it the first time through) that the page was specifically for en.wiki as opposed to meta.wiki , which might differ. Sure enough, over at meta they have a very-different list of abuse-filters in place, one of which is the culprit here: meta#50 is "Comment bot edits from IPs" which is enabled (and set to disallow rather than warn) since June 2012 by HerbyThyme (like I thought from my earlier googling). It *claims* to have a hit-count of NULL, but that's prolly just a counter-bug.
Anyhoo, appreciate your assistance, once you pointed me in the right direction I found somebody who can help -- I recognized one of the usenames (PiRSquared17) on the meta-version of the abuse-filter list who *is* still active -- so I will probably get this sorted out with help from them. (I *am* a bit surprised that the search-engines did not take me to that list, which I will mention to PiRSquared17 over on meta, maybe they have a messed-up robots.txt or something.) Thanks for the help, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
North Shore Country Day School (Notable Alumni)
Each year, since 1981, the school's alumni and development office, with input from the head of school, award the "Francis R. Stanton" award. The award represents a life's work to our school motto "Live and Serve." The annual event takes place over homecoming weekend and current students are afforded the opportunity to meet with the annual Stanton recipient. It is a great honor, in the context of the school's history, to be recognized for this contribution.
It's a great thing for the school to honor it's alumni. However, unless the person meets Wikipedia's notability guideline at WP:BIO, then per WP:SCH/AG, they should not be listed on the Wikipedia article about the school.
A mention of the award existing may be appropriate in the article if there's a reliable source available, but not all the recipients unless they otherwise meet the above mentioned inclusion criteria. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cat help at SSCS
Thank you for trying to help the situation at Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Can you add any help to the discussion on what would be an appropriate criteria for trying to decide whether an article or that articles category belong in a certain category? Me and another editor are at odds on whether SSCS belongs under and Eco-terrorism cat or whether CAT:SSCS belongs under an Eco-terrorism cat. We both agree that both should not. If you are an expert at such matters PLEASE HELP! If not, can you summon one? Thanks. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC) I guess link would be nice too. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society76.112.8.146 (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm not familiar with the details of the dispute, and shouldn't get directly involved with those questions myself anyways, as I'm the one who has protected the page because of the reverts being done during the content dispute.
If there is unclear or disputed consensus, then there are some suggested paths to pursue at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. My personal preference in these situations is to use WP:RFC, then to post a neutrally worded notice on the talk page of any Wikiprojects listed as associated with the article to draw other interested parties into the discussion (generally, just a short note to the Wikiproject talk pages saying that there is an RFC discussion of which members of the Wikiproject may be interested, with a link to that discussion). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for protecting the page. School staff make both regular and frequent attempts to whitewash the article and remove a controversy in it, everything from clumsy attempts, just deleting the material, to sneaky attempts, such as making many smaller edits, each time adding something else while removing the controversy piece by piece. The article was automatically added to my watchlist when I reverted one of the clumsy attempts some months ago, and has stayed on my watchlist since then, with me making reverts that are about as frequent and regular as the whitewashing attempts. Not because I personally care about the school or the controversy (or anything else in that part of the world, for that matter, since I live in Europe...), but because I feel that someone should do it, and noone seems interested in taking over the "job". Thomas.Wtalk to me19:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look very closely at the content involved; I only protected due to the edit warring, and then noticed the COI issue in the IPs comments. I am on Wikipedia less that I would previously edit; so once the protection expires, if edit warring continues, it may be beneficial to bring up the page at either WP:COIN, WP:AN3, WP:ANI, or maybe WT:WPSCHOOLS. That could help to bring the page to the attention of additional editors. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Irom Chanu Sharmila
Dear Barek you mentioned you removed notice of threats to Sharmila's life because I could not provide sources. The source is fearful of their life. I therefore asked for 24 hours in order for the message to be posted and I am attempting to have the NHRC investigate. The main evidence in a murder threat would be a dead body which I trying to avoid. After 24 hours people will know they either care or they don't desmond coutinho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.226.179 (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All we have for any of this is your word. People can claim anything they want, and opposing views can have each party claiming their statements are the only truth and going against their wishes can have disastrous consequences.
Please keep the conversation at either redirecting them or not. Do not bring in other stuff as this is the Afd and consensus discussion. If no one else is against redirecting them when consensus has been reached then it needs to be merged just as others were. There are too many pages and so discussion needs to be on talk page that Afd does not allow for multiple pages. Thanks! 184.58.24.163 (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not send me threats on my talk page. If anyone should be blocked it is you for threatening people. Also if it is okay to talk about redirecting/merging Laurie Forman on Talk:That '70s Show than it is okay to do the same with the other pages. Thanks! Also I have archived messages that have nothing to do with the conversation and so cannot be considered blanking. 184.58.24.163 (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are active discussions, and should not be archived. They are completely relevant to the topic - but go contrary to your stance in that discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding. FYI: the site has not been added to Wikipedia's spam list at this time - that list is maintained at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Items are only added to that list after repeated inappropriate additions of a link by multiple accounts, when other methods of encouraging the user(s) to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies are not effective. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spam
I'm a biomedical scientist who is currently researching in this field? My site has most upto date info as i believe i'm the only one working on it. can you please explain your comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkears11 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The link fails Wikipedia inclusion criterias for external links, as well as failing to meet Wikipedia's definition of being a relaible source. Given your comment above, it appears that you also have a conflict of interest in promoting your personal blog.
Your expertise in locating peer-reviewed published journals would be quite valuable in improving the articles; but self-published blogs which discusses those sources is not an appropriate addition. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Park West References
You undid edits I'd been making on Park West Gallery's site - added resources to Oakland Press, Detroit Free Press, Michigan Chronicle, etc., as blatant PR? Completely baffled. I did see that the ref list was a little wonky and was hoping to fix that, but undo it all without comment? You have a suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvartanddesign (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if sourced, it's important to present the material from a neutral point of view, and the article should be written in an encyclopedic tone, not as a narrative. The original "history" section may need expanding; but that doesn't mean that promotional puffery should be inserted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block of Coronationstreet100
I am sorry, but could you substantiate your claim that Coronationstreet100 is a sock of Drwho16? I am not seeing any checkuser or SP investigation (or results thereof) connecting Coronationstreet100 to Drwho16. It seems rather sudden that you would block the user, revert a clearly helpful image addition and then place a protection template on the article. I am trying to assume good faith here, but it would help if you were to explain your reasoning, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The semi-protecting is entirely due to the continued edit warring by a clear and obvious sock of the initial edit warring editor. The new sock has been blocked per WP:DUCK. A new user arrives making identical edits[10] as the edits[11] by the other edit warring socks (such as Ronaldomessirooneymourinho) a day after that sock was blocked, and after that sock master made clear that they would continue socking if they were not unblocked.[12] An initial scan of the discussion appears that consensus for the change has not yet been reached. I have no personal preference on this (only reverted due to the obvious socking), and am staying out of the discussion - I'll support whatever consensus the community finds. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Coronationstreet100's edit seemed like a BOLD, but useful addition. What harm would there have been in getting community (or at least SPI or checkuser) input before taking the large, aggressive steps of calling out the user as a sock, reverting their changes and locking an article? The user didn't appear to be going anywhere and the article was in no immediate crisis, so what was the rush?
I trust your judgment and if the user is a sock, then screw them to hell in a rusty, nail-filled box. Apart from my reservations noted above, as a senior admin, you serve as an example for new admins as a template of careful consideration. This doesn't look like that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot to read; but an initial scan suggests this is fundamentally a content dispute (with NOR and WEIGHT concerns). I'm not seeing where an RfC has been started on the issue as yet, that would be the best next move. As to the message board, has the lack of involvement at it been brought up at ANI? I'm not sure - I rarely read ANI, too much drama, so I only scroll through it a couple times a month.
The noticeboards essentially get involvement by editors (including admins) who focus in specific areas; for example, I primarily focus at WT:WPSPAM, WP:RFPP, and WP:3RN. It sounds like the admins that may have previously monitored WP:NORN have drifted away to other areas, although WP:RSN may have some overlap, so could comment there as well as at ANI mentioning that there's a backlog of un-reviewed issues.
Thanks, Barek. No, I haven't taken this matter to WP:ANI yet. I told the editor in question that, if the wholly inappropriate editing continued, taking this matter to WP:ANI would be my next step because of the repeated aforementioned policy violations. Because the policies are clear about what we are supposed to do, it doesn't seem like this is something that should be taken to WP:RfC, and it's often the case that a WP:RfC barely gets any outside participation, but I'll keep a WP:RfC in mind with regard to this. Thanks again for analyzing it and for the advice. Flyer22 (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Fu case
With respect, I don't think a ten-day semi protection is even close to enough. The article's history is littered with BLP violations from various sockpuppets and meatpuppets, both brand new accounts, and IPs. Also, this latest account needs blocking, for BLP violations, copyright violations, and for edit-warring (well over 3RR). Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)18:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have the pages on my watch-list now. After ten days, assuming theedit warring resumes, I'll re-protect for a longer duration. Should the disruption resume and I miss it, feel free to bring it to my attention on my talk page here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by the 72-hour block on the account as well; was that an error, given the summary "Spam / advertising-only account", and should it not have been for far longer? (The issues run far deeper than that, but I wouldn't expect or even ask you to go over all of the sordid details; it would take forever and would be thoroughly depressing). Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)18:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a sock, it'll likely be discarded anyways - so a duration doesn't matter (if it does get picked up again for the same behavior, it can be blocked indefinitely later if needed). If it's not a sock (and I'm still sorting through the history), then the shorter duration is enough time to get their attention so they can try to learn appropriate behavior and adjust their behavior later. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the existing history with the sock accounts, and if it is the master I suspect (or even linked to them) - User:LarryTr7, I can tell you that the accounts aren't thrown away after temporary blocks. And your faith that they will learn is commendable, but simply won't happen in this case. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)18:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'm still sorting through the history. Do you have a name for the suspected sockmaster or prior sock investigation? That would help accelerate things, so I don't need to track it down on my own. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, I just linked it above; User:LarryTr7. There's no guarantee it's a sock, because we've seen plenty of meatpuppets, but the investigation is here. There's been an off-site coordinated attack on Ping Fu, but it had died down until this new book came out. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)18:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A favor to ask
As per this, I tidied up the introduction and made the wording more neutral. I know that it's a minor thing, but I believe that it's important to hold all articles to the same standard, regardless of their importance. Anyway, my changes were reverted by this guy (the one who added most of the fluff and "admiration" slant in the article in the first place). I changed it back but I have no doubts that it won't last. I feel that my revision is more concise and generally more appropriate for an encyclopedia. I saw your note that you're going to be busy in the real world and less responsive on Wikipedia, but could you possibly keep an eye on it and the user in question? The way that they reverted the changes so quickly furthers my idea that they consider the article "theirs", and prune it as such. I wiki-retired a long time ago and no longer have the energy or time to fight these sorts of things, and I don't want to come across as asking you to push my own personal agenda, but I feel that "guarding" an article in such a way is ultimately a very bad thing. I understand completely if you don't think it's important or that I have grounds to be concerned, but I would appreciate it if you could at least give the situation a quick perusal. I've been gone so long that I don't even remember the standard procedure for these sorts of things, so I wouldn't even know where to begin with it. --184.166.113.34 (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
edit to ebay's page about the removal of the Zimmerman painting
Hi Barek. I'm confused about your removal of my additional section to ebay's controversy page about their removal of the Zimmerman piece. Can you please suggest an edit so that I can post it as I think it is highly relevant and contains all required references. I have pasted it below. Thanks
In December 2013, on the same day that George Zimmerman’s painting raked in over $100,000 on eBay,[3] artist Micheal D’Antuono was told by the same online auction company that his artistic interpretation of the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin confrontation titled “A Tale Of Two Hoodies” violated eBay’s Hateful or Discriminatory policy and was removed from the website.[4]
In an email D’Antuono provided to Raw Story[5], eBay told the artist that “[i]tems promoting or glorifying hatred, violence, or racial or religious intolerance aren’t allowed. Items that promote organizations with these views are also prohibited.” And they explained that “[t]he painting you listed appears to contain images or icons associated with the KKK which are not allowed to be listed on our site as they represent an organization that glorifies hate and violence.”
As at the time of writing, the painting “A Tale Of Two Hoodies” had been relisted on artFido[6], with D'Antuono promising to donate 50% of the proceeds of the sale to the Trayvon Martin Foundation.[7][8]
Hi again Barek. Thanks for your edits. I've still got my wiki training wheels on so appreciate your guidance :)
To confirm, at a later stage when the current auction that has been relisted has ended, am I able to update this section stating what it sold for? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamaze01 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where that would be relevant to an article about eBay - as it would take place completely external to them. But, it would be best to discuss on the article's talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zimmerman controversy part 3
Thanks again Barek. I think it would be relevant as it provides an end to the story/controversy. I've made your edits and updated the page. Thanks again for your help and have a great New Year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamaze01 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
?!
Hi. Just curious about the rationale for this reversion:
Ah. I never even saw that, don't know how it got there. The actual edit I made was the fix to the citation, well below that. Thanks for the explanation.172.12.225.38 (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
