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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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_2015.
If there's another admin who is familiar with the past pattern of vandalism or already familiar with the subject, you could try pinging them for assistance. I tried looking through the pages mentioned, and there's clear content dispute issues, but I'm not seeing obvious vandalism. Hopefully the AIV report may also draw in admins more familiar with the articles involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked the IPs adding the link - hopefully that slows or stops the spamming. If they bypass the blocks with additional IPs, let me know and I'll re-protect the article at that point. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aloha Barek! my contribution about Jaime Bley on the "Humor" wiki page...was supposed to be funny. that adds to the enhancement of the humor page ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.72.199 (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should take your joke posts to another website where they may be more appropriate. Continued such vandalism is likely to result in your account being blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9gag
I made the changes after I found that they plagiarized my content, and further research revealed that 9gag is a website that plagiarizes the majority of their content. My evidence is, of course, anecdotal and biased, but please ensure that the entry reflects that plagiarism by 9gag isn't an unproven or alleged offense, but a real one with real documentary evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.198.136 (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For those claims, what is needed are third-party reliable sources. I am not disputing your claim - only stating what is needed for such claims to be stated in Wikipedia articles about the subject of an article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was somehow surprised that my contribution to "PIGS" was published so fast and canceled likewise. As a Wiki newcomer I am not sure if I understood your comment. As the sporadic use of "FUKG" and FUKG-US" was cited correctly I guess that you mean the citation of German media is missing. However, if anybody types "PIIGS" into google he/she will find 63000 responds only from German sides. Nevertheless, I will select one representative of them and try again. Thank you, U rob me (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To properly source the material being added, you need to find third-party reliable sources to support the added claims. The two refs you had used were both comments added by users in a discussion section, which does not meet the threshold of being reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fgtyg78
Any objections if I up this to an indef? As per your analysis, this appears to be a spam only account that is the same editor as, or working with, several promotional IPs. Seems that there is little reason to simply let him resume his activities. Kuru(talk)01:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a recurrent problem with a citation. You can see what I am trying to do in the last few edits. I am stumped. Please take a look and save my bacon. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎)22:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the ref that was broken. The broken ref was using a ref named "ABAReport" ... however, that ref was defined on a row for "tuition" which was not displayed in the infobox (that field isn't defined within Template:Infobox law school), and so the ref with using that name was breaking. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself in a strange dilemma. I am a direct witness. From 1972 to 1975, my work involved me in:
1. discussing and advising on media policy with Gough Whitlam during the 1972 election campaigns;
2. as Senior Adviser to the Minister for the Media, drafting Cabinet submissions to do with Double J and drafting policy items which formed the main policy of the ALP after its Federal Conference in 1973;
3. generally advising the Minister for the Media on the topic;
4. researching issues to do with frequency allocations for radio and television, with some liaison with the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, (which controlled the allocations);
4. maintaining liaison with the Prime Minister's office and at times, directly with the Prime Minister himself, on the developing application of policy in these areas.
I thought that might nearly qualify me as contributor, and distinguish what I had written as something other than "original research", as it's now been classified, and expunged from the record. If I offer direct recollection of the views of Gough Whitlam from conversations with him and his advisers, why is this some form of "original research" which Wikipedia cannot digest? (Particularly when the article currently contains third party summaries of what it was thought might have been Whitlam's views.) If I explain some of the terms on which 2JJ was commenced based on work I contributed on the relevant Cabinet submission, am I offering "original research"? If I explain that some delays in implementing policy arose from complex issues to do with reorganizing the policy of allocation of radio frequencies, am I offering unreliable information? Are primary sources of information actually banned?
I note that others have cited an article which was written by a person who was kind enough to obtain large chunks of information directly from me. Is this other chain of information, one stage of remove away from me, somehow more "legitimate"? Or even more bizarre, would I be plagiarizing if I quoted some of what she says, based on what I said in the first instance?
Do I have to go away and post an article on the net and then come back and cite my own article?
The policy and guideline above both tie directly into the broader policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability. As a general rule, stating things should be accepted as true because you say they are true is not going to work on Wikipedia. Afterall, if that were acceptable, what would exist from someone with an axe to grind to make up accusations and claim they should be in the article because they say it's true. The problem is that on the internet, a person can claim or invent any identity or credentials they wish. By using material that's published by a third-party reliable source - we then have a type of validation of the materials. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Five Guys' music
Hi, Barek. I noticed you deleted a criticism of Five Guys' music. The section included a citation and is a well covered topic on the web. Would you mind explaining why you removed the section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.189.151 (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on your talk page, the material is only sourced to a Google search result. This does not meet Wikipedia's guideline for being a third-party reliable source (see WP:RS). Also, the search results are nothing but a collection of reviews and personal blog posts - all of which also fail to meet the guideline for being a third-party reliable source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RFC/U
If you are not sure whether something is an issue for WP:ANI or for WP:RFC/U, look up WP:RFC/U and you will see that, as a procedure, it has been discontinued because it, first, was restrictive and complicated, and, second, usually merely increased the drama caused by disruptive editors. So you were right in posting to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I had missed the discontinuation of RFC/U ... I should have looked. I had rarely ventured there in the past as I prefered investing my time elsewhere on the project. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dental Crown Broken Link Correction
Hello Barek,
I am a dentist and my specialty is on dental restorations like dental crowns and dental implants. I'm using CEREC for several years. So, I'm totally familiar with the dental crowns and CEREC concepts and its pros and cons. I searched internet for that broken link and found the correct content link. How don't you let me guide the people to the right page that contains the correct article. Please let the fix to be fulfilled.
Ignoring for the moment your conflict of interest by adding links to the website of your own practice (which is reason enough in itself that you should not be adding the link to any article), the link added was highly promotional spam-like content and fails our criteria of being a reliable source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reference that you are supplying is a press-release, and highly promotional. What is needed is a third-party reliable source which neutrally discusses the text you are wanting to add.
As for the image - I wasn't involved with the image deletion; but copyright concerns are taken very seriously on Wikipedia. If there is any question on the copyright that is not resolved in a timely manner, the image will likely be deleted. To get assistance in uploading an image and satisfying the copyright concerns, you can ask for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk, or post questions at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ITT Tech Whitewashing
I returned the information on ITT Tech "red flag" schools to its original form. Many people who are looking at this article need this information to understand the depth of the problem and its effects on people, communities, and governments. ITT Tech has many schools who have default rates that are greater than their graduation rates (i.e. "red flag" schools). This is a significant issue that cannot be whitewashed. If you want to talk more about this, please email me at dahnshaulis@gmail.com. Dahnshaulis (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of the spamming I had seen had been on that one article; but if it has spilled onto other articles as well, then I'm fine with blacklisting and removal of the page protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was more, some of the IPs were using a wider scope. I think I did them the honour of blacklisting the stuff (even if it was one page, the collateral damage from a page protection is often bigger than blacklisting). --Dirk BeetstraTC03:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Evening Barek. It's late so I'm probably missing something but the reference you deleted (diff) has an "About..." section halfway down the left hand side that states "...clients include ... National Geographic, New Scientist...". Did you overlook that? -Arb. (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I missed that minor mention on the left (I tried searching the page, but I must have overlooked that bit). I'll restore the ref - although adjust the ref to a sub-page that appears to place the relevant "About" material a bit more prominently on the page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, have searched in vain for the good path to get administrator’s help for the following issue and so I decided to send this request to some including you.
I have considerably expanded the article Guerrilla filmmaking and took care in referencing it as far as I could (over 90 links to trustful sources). I am an experienced editor of Wikipedia. For my surprise, the article was reverted by user CIRT to a preceding stub version mainly consisting of a very narrow list of films. Many important contents were removed. Self promotional vandalism seems to be the reason of such intervention, sustained by acute threats.
I do not intend to respond with helpless and inconsequent arguments and the time I have to dedicate to Wikipedia is quite limited.
I’d be happy if you could pay some attention to this occurrence and let you decide whatever you think is reasonable.
I noticed information pertaining to the military in metro Charleston was deleted because some was not directly within Charleston proper; however, if you notice, there are many references throughout the Charleston article that references metro Charleston. If it is acceptable for other sections, then it should be acceptable to the military section as well. In this way, the reader will have all data in one location pertaining to Charleston.
The metro area has its own article. Material related to the metro area and not the city propper belongs in the metro article, not the city article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am from chennai. The thing here is the link which is written is the native script of the language, and I think it is only correct and appropriate that it is written in the same script as the native language and not in english script. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.23.187 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit contains two changes: one is re-adding a link which fails WP:EL guidelines. As to the script, you should take it to the article talk page and get community consensus; but, keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia site, and I can't find examples of the name of the language spoken written in the native script on any other article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The link most certainly fails inclusion criteria of WP:EL. Also, you are now in violation of WP:3RR, continuing after being warned, which can result in your account being blocked and/or page protection to prevent your continued disruption. You were asked multiple times to take it to the article talk page - I strongly suggest reverting the edit done after the 3RR warning and getting consensus on the article talk page for your changes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
age dispartity
Please provide a full lock. Registred user started adding new images without consent, whhile ignoring the talkppage.
14:05, 11 February 2015 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk | contribs) . . (14,666 bytes) (+153) . . (Leave all three images up during the commenting please)
13:49, 11 February 2015 Richar16:44, 11 February 2015 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk | contribs) . . (14,666 bytes) (-651) . . (At the risk of 3rr I am reversing the additions because of legal concerns over personality rights, see talk page)
d Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk | contribs) . . (14,666 bytes) (+153) . . (They all stay up while we are deciding) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.176.62.228 (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only user who has violated WP:3RR on the page is you, and so a semi-protection was adequate to stop the disruption. Should a registered user also violate 3RR, then a full page protection may be needed later. The alternative would have been to block your user account; I chose for now to not do that as I thought it better to allow discussion to continue on the talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the edit history you can see that there was someone trying to put in new images at least 3 times. I reverted the previous version, the one that has the most consensus. I reverted to a version I don't even agree on, I reverted to that version because it was the version being discussed on the talkpage. And yes, sometimes there can be a right version. In this case the preserved version is. Simply because it was the version we are discussing. The disrupter tried to add new images while the disussion about images was still ongoing. He tried to introduce a new version of the page, without disussing it first. So I protected the previous version. This previous version, is the same version that you preserved. So how can my reverts even count? The disruption was stopped because the person who caused the disruption ceased it. The protection did help, but a full protection would have been much more appropiate. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Please ignore my previous comment. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Age disparity in sexual relationships
Can you revert to the version of Age disparity in sexual relationships with the three images displayed that are under discussion. That way the discussion can continue. All three are art images so there is no problem with personality rights. The earlier problem was with random pictures of people. They were implying that they have a sexual relationship and may violate personality rights, despite being public domain images. Thanks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Wrong Version - I left the version in place at the time of the page protection being applied.
Besides - for every wrong version, there's a right version. I'm happy with the version as it is, and although I think that auto-confirmed user only protection was sufficient, this is also good enough. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
::: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) says: "That way the discussion can continue". This is untrue, because the discussion never ceased. User just introduced a new (even more biased) version of the page, by starting to add new images and ignoring the ongoing discussion. While I agree with Chaheel Riens that the current version of the page should stay until the discussion is solved, I do think it was inappropriate to lock the page to anonymous users. It contributes to the bias people already have against newbies. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Please ignore my previous comment. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reverting your deletion of my edit on Hyperlink
Hi, I see you (rather quickly) deleted my edit to hyperlink , citing unsourced references and a mangled(?) ref?
Please, let me finish the edit (by adding the refs) before deleting such an article in such as hasty fashion.
By all means, flag it as needing references, as unsourced and needing citations, but the deleting of factual imformation merely because the refs haven't been given (yet) or beause one is unaware of any refs oneself, or if one is either unfamiliar with the subject or unaware of a subject's importance, are rather unfair.
My concern with the article before my edit and after your deletion of it, is that the article is very www/http centred, and ignores other markup languages that botHi, I see you (rather quickly) deleted my edit to hyperlink , citing unsourced references and a mangled(?) ref?
Please, let me finish the edit (by adding the refs) before deleting such an article in such as hasty fashion.
By all means, flag it as needing references, as unsourced and needing citations, but the deleting of factual imformation merely because the refs haven't been given (yet) or beause one is unaware of any refs oneself, or if one is either unfamiliar with the subject or unaware of a subject's importance, are rather unfair.
My concern with the article before my edit and after your deletion of it, is that the article is very www/http centred, and ignores other markup languages that both permitted hyperlinks and predate the www/http/url standards.
As stated quite clearly on this, your very own Talk Page, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." My edit did not infringe any copyright and is in fact verifiable.
Thank you for your time in reading this,
Alec (smarteralec)h permitted hyperlinks and predate the www/http/url standards.
As stated quite clearly on this, your very own Talk Page, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." My edit did not infringe any copyright and is in fact verifiable.
Thank you for your time in reading this,
Alec (smarteralec) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smarteralec (talk • contribs) 02:31, 18 February 2015
Aside from being unsourced, your edit is also redundant (see "other technologies" section), is poorly formatted, and your edit also inserted the word "Trouble" in two places lower on the page, mangling a link. As a result, I have again reverted the edit. Take it to the article talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Manic Drive
Please do not change the wiki of a band you don't know. Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy.yeah (talk • contribs) 23:38, 21 February 2015
I have a right to edit the article, so long as I edit in-line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You do not own the article and cannot dictate who can edit it. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.
Hallo Barek, apparently they started to insert again the Global Slavery Index on some country articles (Uzbekistan, Haiti, etc.) I reverted some of them some months ago, and afterwards I saw that you started an ANI about it. The present editor, 3rdWorldkid, is one of the previous editors, and participated to the ANI discussion. I wrote a message on its talk page, but if he persists, I will start another ANI. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Top Hat Trading
Hello Barek, I was notified now that you nominate the Top Hat Trading Limited page for speed deletion based on page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion. The reason for page been deleted, was missing sources information in magazines articles. I already fixed them, so I think that deletion problem be solved with that and now page have all the WP criteria to stay on-line. I would like to challenge the decision to deletion of article "Top Hat Trading Limited" because previous deletions problem already has been solved.Johnf1982 (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to debate the speedy tag on the article talk page at Talk:Top Hat Trading Limited. But be aware that admins can view the deleted version. After comparing the current version to what was deleted, the only additional reference is a press release, which would not overcome the issues from the prior AfD. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barek, I had a few questions about the changes I made and you removed.
Was the issue that the "Canada Guaranty" link was dead and converting it is not allowed, or that creating outbound links is not allowed?
I felt this change enhanced the page until the internal page was created, but clearly that's not important. Why are the links just not removed since the destination is now missing?
Why do other references on that page have outbound links to them and not just a missing reference page like Canada Guaranty?
Sorry to ask so many questions, and I have no personal or professional interest in Canada Guaranty.
@Michael E Curry: - sorry, I meant to post on your talk page, but got side-tracked by real-world activity.
Per Wikipedia's external links guideline, there are a very limited number of appropriate circumstances under which an external link should be in the body of an article. Leaving the link as a red-link to a future internal Wikipedia article about the entity is more appropriate. Red-links are not evil, not a sign of a problem. It just indicates that no one has as-yet gotten around to creating an article with sufficient third-party reliable sources. From an initial Google search of news sources, there appear to be more than sufficient number of them for an article on Canada Guaranty Mortgage Insurance to be created, likely first as a draft article to allow time for it to develop adequately to meet Wikipedia content and styling guidelines before it gets moved to the main article space. If you're interested in drafting such as article, tips on maneuvering the sometimes confusing set of Wikipedia procedures can be found at Wikipedia:Your first article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I realize now that this is a Wikipedia guideline, however, why are other large organization on that page linked out to?
Please understand that I am not arguing the point, just trying to understand the difference here.
Michael E Curry (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael E Curry: - can you point one out? I see multiple organizations that are linked to internal Wikipedia articles, but I'm not seeing others that are using an external link. Still, other links needing to be reviewed and potentially cleaned up is not a strong case for adding yet another that doesn't follow site guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Barek, you should understand that. Also, I am one of those bankers, so be careful. Sr. Alfronzo, Wikipedia is not a forum for conspiracy theories. Do not go around putting that stuff in our articles again. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the Federal Reserve Board of Governors page state explicitly: "Once a member of the Board of Governors is appointed by the president, he or she functions mostly independently." The only "oversight" is a report once a year to the Speaker of the House. This is not conspiracy this is just connecting the dots. I have a freedom of speech why should I be careful of my words — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winstalfred Alfronzo (talk • contribs) 18:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a free-speech zone, nor is it a forum for theories and imaginations ("connecting the dots" typically means original research). The moment Barek says "not on my talk page please" you have to stop it. And please sign your messages. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for opinions or your personal synthesis of information. The encyclopedia reflects (by design) the collective views of mainstream scholarship and journalism. "Free speech" is permitted only to the extent that itdoes not become disruptive soapboxing that affects the work of the encyclopedia. You may not present your own scholarship on Wikipedia, nor may you use it as a platform for advocacy. See WP:FRINGE and WP:SOAP. Acroterion(talk)18:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, however this is neither soap boxing nor is it fringe theory. This is a summation of the congressional record by Louis T. McFadden. I may have inadvertently made my first post seem otherwise. I am trying to be as fair and balanced as possible and say that the Fed was created by private bank owners in 1910, ratified by congress in 1913, has little to no oversight and is only legally speaking a sanctioned branch of Congress. Now, is that still original research? Winstalfred Alfronzo (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just got back to my computer. From what I see, my user talk page isn't the place for this discussion. I appreciate that other editors have this page on their watch list and were able to respond in my absence; but I need to request that if article content is going to be discussed, it's better to have it on the article talk page at talk:Federal Reserve System so that all users with an interest in the subject can see it and can weigh in on the discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for any inconvenience that I may have caused, you are indeed correct. I am a new user to this system thank you for pointing me in the right direction. Winstalfred Alfronzo (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed an indiscriminate list that was an advertising magnet - while a handful have their own article or third-party sources, the majority on that list of claimed "notable" manufacturers were sourced to nothing more than their own website or even dead links with no description of what was supposedly once linked. Feel free to branch the material into a separate article "List of putter manufacturers" or similar, list articles tend to have more leeway in that type of content - although blatant advert listings will still get purged or cleaned out. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll look at doing so. Of course "notable" is subjective - what it notable to a golfer may not be notable to a non-golfer. Many putter manufactures, while "notable" in golf circles, are small operations and non-web site information may be scarce at best. I'll look for dead links and remove\correct. Please know that when I compiled the original list there was no intent of promotion or advertisement for any of the putter manufacturers
--X-15a2 (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The link I replaced was for a page that was created in 2010 and has inaccurate pricing. The link I replaced it with is accurate NOW and is the closest thing I could find to the original link. The origal page that you reinstated is blatantly a commercial page as clicking anywhere on it takes you to a sales page for an agent called 'Move4us'. The page I replaced it with has links to all of the different agents listed on it.
Of course I'm not a robot (I replied to your prior post on this page, that in itself should have clarified the question). And assuming I am could be interpreted as a failure to assume good faith. The warning messages on your talk page identified the Wikipedia guidelines you were going against. If you have questions on those, I suggest you ask for clarification rather than edit warring. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify - I was removing the link specifically per the guidance in the section WP:ELPOINTS #2 which explains that "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article" (the "not normally" criteria is explained as a footnote, and the link you were adding does not meet the criteria of being an exception). The link also could not be converted to being a reference, as attempting to interpret an image would be original research. To use a ref, a reliable source that states the text being cited would be needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:N, which is Wikipedia's guideline on establishing a subject as notable. Also see WP:RS, which is Wikipedia's guideline for determining what qualifies as a reliable source on Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excerpt from reccomended article
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources
The Story is a published source on Amazon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.101.68.47 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 7 April 2015
Har har, very funny.
But, Yes I see that, the direct quote is
...if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.
Except, the important part is the last bit, "separate article". The page "Story" is what I believe called a disambiguation page, which has numerous references of that key word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.101.68.47 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 7 April 2015
Good point, I did notice the fact every bullet had a hyperlink. Well thanks for clearing that up! Hope I didn't take up too much time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.101.68.47 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rvt user page edits
Hello, the edits you reverted on User:Jelly Bean MD were done in order to "close" the account following demand for global indefinite block due to compromised account during absence. Can you restore them? - thanks for your collaboration. --142.157.21.101 (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The account here is already blocked - their request at fr.wiki was to have their account blocked for personal reasons, no mention of a request to alter their user page. Even if they had, it would be very unusual for a request on fr to carry over to en. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence of a "global block demand", all you provided was a request to block their account on fr.wiki - no evidence whatsoever that it was a global demand, nor any indication that they wanted their userpage modified after their account was blocked. The account here is already blocked, that's all that's needed here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it did answer it. Their account was "closed" when their account here was blocked. No modifying of their userpage is necessary to close an account - your assumption otherwise is in error. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - but if you have additional questions, you might get a quicker response at either WP:Help Desk or at WP:Teahouse. I'm happy to help too, but those resources have multiple people responding to questions - so response times are faster. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Running Man
Back off. Right now. Read the info that's been added. These are perfectly valid citation tags that are being added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.186.37 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 13 April 2015
It's no wonder this place is hated so much. You feel big now? Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.186.37 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 April 2015
It may be beneficial to not ban people for no reason. Anyhoo - gonna edit and link the plots to the book and the film so everyone can see there is no similarity. Good for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.33.84 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 April 2015
Given their behavior, I believe the block is appropriate. However, the user is welcome to submit an unblock request - and instructions to submit one are in the block notice on their talk page. I will not object if another admin chooses to offer them some rope by approving an unblock request from them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Protection of the Criticism of the Federal Reserve Page
Please be aware that the person (Volunteer Marek) that asked you to protect that page is clueless and acts to change pages to conform to him unsubstantiated view of reality. A plainly obvious example of this is that he continues to change the Milton Friedman page to the effect that Milton Friedman's opinion that the Federal Reserve should be abolished was a one time thing when in fact it was a long held belief, from at least the 1970's to the time of his death.
In this video Friedman states that Friedman gave this opinion to Arthur Burns who served as Fed Chairman in the 70's. The video used as a cite in the article in from decades after and states the same thing. Obviously it was not a one time statement and in fact spanned decades.
In the Federal Reserve page he keeps deleting criticism that the Fed caused the inflation of the 70's. That criticism is so mainstream and widespread that the cite used, is a paper in a Federal Reserve publication. Its likely the economist who wrote that paper works or has worked for the FED.
I request that you unprotect Criticism of the Federal Reserve page and further take some action against Marek. Banning would be nice. A prohibition against editing any pages involving economists and economics would also be nice, since he plainly thinks he KNOWS things when in fact he is either deluded, or clueless.
No one asked me to protect the article - I saw a large revert, looked at article history, and based on what I saw I protected the article so the obvious dispute could be resolved on the article talk page.
Please review WP:DR for suggestions on how to resolve content disputes and to reach consensus. Also, remember to discuss content, not contributors. Several of your recent posts appear to contain WP:NPA violations - I will be placing a warning on your current IP page. Looking at the article and talk page history, I see my only previous edits (in 2012 and 2013) were to redact personal attacks from two IPs that were also in the 71.174.x.x range - one of which I blocked due to the repeated personal attacks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Freecycle Network
Barek,
Hi, I'm the executive director of The Freecycle Network and there are several outdated / inaccurate statements about our organization under "Freecycle" as well as the mark misuse being listed as "freecycling." I can provide links to the registered marks in various countries but beyond that there really aren't references. How shall I proceed?
67.1.222.24 (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Deron Beal[reply]
As for the link to the "freecycling" article, that's an entirely appropriate link to a related Wikipedia article, and appropriately belongs in the "See also" section as a related subject.
For outdated content, the material you are blanking is all sourced to third-party reliable sources. If that content is outdated, you will need new sources - it's related to our site policy on verifiability, which states (in part): "people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. 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) - 21:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
situation seemingly out of control, and it used to be much worse. This Colombian IP used to be User:Xxxx693 and also User:Lombriz de Aguapuerca. Several users (not just me) told him politely that "Quique Flores" sufficed as name for this WP and that he was wrong (please see more details in Mr. Flores' talkpage and in Xxxx's one). The result? Attacks to me and just myself, personal - vile as can be at that! - or just "tactic" (i.e. destroying the user/talk page, I used to be User:AlwaysLearning, have been here for almost nine years).
Now, this "person" seems to be more calm, only insults me through the edit summaries, much appreciated (and now, maybe, he will also call me a crybaby for this message I now send you, like he did so many times in the past). Happy editing. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't realize you wanted a reply. Thanks for pointing me to the history - I hadn't been aware that the disruption had been ongoing for so long. I have the article on my watchlist now, and will protect the article as needed if the disruption resumes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, there has been a group of IP adresses that have only been seen on select articles with the intention of vandalizing them with very minute, discreet edits, such as date changes. I believe this is only one editor who has a lot of free time on his or her hands, and wishes to compromise the quality of Wikipedia. This IP editor (hopper) is persistent, has likely been vandalizing Wikipedia for years, and has publicly stated his or her intentions here, enraging another good samaritan, User:Tom Danson. I filed a report concerning the IP hopping. The only solution that has been taken is the WP:S-P bandaid on some of the related articles of Utica, New York which is good, but only slows the hemorrhage. Please help, because the only solution I see is a full-blown range block. How this can be accomplished, I'm not entirely sure, but I know I can provide you with the pertinent information needed to help bring this years-long issue to rest. Buffaboytalk21:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with a range block is it can impact a large number of innocent editors in addition to the vandal. If you have a list of the IP numbers involved, I can look at how big of a range would be required and review edits by other IPs within that range to see how extensive of an impact such a range block might cause. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I saw there was at least a partial list in the ANI report - from that, it looks like multiple ranges may be involved. I'll need to review each range separately to see if range blocks are possible without causing secondary disruption. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update I saw the bombshell (at least to me) you dropped that an IP is registered to a government entity?
I was surprised to see that too, so I checked a second tool to verify. But, just because it's a city IP address, doesn't mean it is a city employee. If they make public wifi available in city government buildings, then it could be anyone who happened to be in one of those buildings at the time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see.
Well, my audit is done, and I believe I have the list right here. You'll find that there is a huge correlation with the 32.xxx IPs and the corresponding edits in that they all seem to have the same tone using words like "grammar," "spelling," and minor fix to try and fool editors that they are insignificant edits. If someone doesn't recognize the IPs they could take the summaries as face value and not check the diff. He uses the same edit summaries like this, this, and here. The guy has a brand.
After a review, I don't believe a range block is possible in this situation. Most of those IPs are managed by AT&T wireless; blocking those would have a large impact to other uninvolved editors. Unfortunately, this means blocking one at a time as they are spotted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Man that sucks. The guy think's he's unstoppable, so he'll see this as a "win". Honestly, I have seen similar material on Google that sounds like it was produced by him, so he's probably a hermit who spends his life trolling and vandalizing forums and WP. Fortunately, he only edits on specific Utica-related articles, with the big ones semi-protected for a while. Too bad you can't ban UUIDs. Buffaboytalk20:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of the edit summaries from the vandals and the username "Censored by Judeophobic" should be removed from public view as well, in my opinion. :) Amaury (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My primary reason for hiding the summaries, usernames, and some posts was due to the username which contained an attack on another user. The content of the post itself was disruptive, but I didn't see that part as requiring action beyond a revert. If you disagree, feel free to request it from another admin or via an WP:ANI request - I won't dispute if another admin has a different interpretation and chooses to delete the revisions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you kindly archive the talk page there. It's full of old discussions mostly along the lines of WP:OWN from the students at the school plus at least one completely inappropriate remark. I'd do it myself but I am on my phone and can't cut and paste. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic terrorist attacks list
Hi there.
I noticed that you protected the Islamic terrorists list page in an incorrect fashion.
The event known on Wikipedia as the Sydney Siege was verified not to have been a terrorist attack. While it was done by a man who was an Arab Muslim, it was a criminal act, not a terrorist act, as it fits no version of terrorism. There was discussion at the time (especially amongst people in USA) who claimed it was secretly terrorism, but a coronial inquiry has subsequently proven that his reason for the criminal action was solely to try to get his girlfriend's criminal charges dropped, and they had nothing at all to do with any terrorist plot.
There was quite a lot of lengthy and heated discussions about this, both on Wikipedia and in the news in general, with the final decision being that there was proof that it was not a terrorist attack. The Sydney Siege article, the article on the criminal responsible, Man Horis, Terrorism in Australia and also the Islamic terrorists article were all changed to reflect this.
But now you have protected the page in an incorrect state, presumably by someone who was unwilling to recognise that they lost the fight to have this criminal action regarded as terrorism.
Since I can't change it, I wonder if at some point you can remove the single line linking the Sydney Siege to that article?
It was this edit [2] by User:Joobo that re-added the link incorrectly. It is listed in its own article to be a criminal act, not a terrorist act. Since Joobo seemed to be the main motivation for the page being protected, I would like to request that that edit be undone. Thank you. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus on the article talk page is that the mention should be removed, then the {{edit request}} template can be added to the talk page followed by the specifics of the requested change. Any admin who patrols edit requests can then make the edit. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus in the article that it links to. There is also consensus in the 4 other articles, including this one, that reference it. There is no need for further discussion about it. There was a coronial inquiry about it that proved that it was not terrorism. Since you are the one that protected it, I am requesting for you to undo that edit. It was already undone twice, but you, as the protecting admin, accidentally protected it in an incorrect state. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus is already established, then post an {{edit request}} at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks. As I am the protecting admin, my preference is to have a different admin make the requested change.
You have undone 2 panos of madereugeneandrew. I am not sure how you can conclude that an image of houseboats frozen in a lake is of questionable value. To take the photo out is to remove a circumpolar perspective on the subject. As far as mangling the format... I tested on two screen sizes and the article looked appropriate. If you go to the code, it looks odd, I agree. Is this not something you can help with, instead of deleting? Please reconsider the value of an image of houseboats in winter. The image provides the breadth of what wikipedia seeks to achieve in an article.
You also said the same of an image of tidal pools. There is no other image of the tidal pools. The article speaks of the pools and many people go there because of the pools. The pano captures the culture and atmosphere of these pools. Again please help with the formatting the code rather than removing a wide angle image.
An image of "questionable value" is indeed a relative matter. By removing a pano that shows the pools and the quiet patrons, you remove what the world knows about Kapaho. In my view, if someone presents an even better pic of the pools (maybe an aerial shot?), then remove it.
@Madereugeneandrew: If you disagree with my removal, then per WP:BRD, please start a discussion on the individual article talk pages to get additional user input.
The tidal pool image is of poor quality, and its placement did mangle the page layout, leaving some text dangling in an odd location (although that part of the issue could be fixed by using an appropriate template).
Likewise, the houseboat image resulted in dangling text outside the body of the rest of the page, and I do question the additional encyclopedic value added - although, in all fairness, I can see an argument for this one - so I wouldn't debate this one being restored if you feel strongly on it. I think a different discussion is needed on this article, weighing the merits of the various images to reduce the redundancy of the other images. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Vandalism
Hi, I think it was you who responded to me earlier about vandalism, on InsertWittyNameHere's page. Just saying, what I did isn't like posting a bad picture, what I did wasn't profane. Also, it wasn't like spray-painting "this is a wall" on a wall. It was like putting a sign on a wall that says "this is a wall." The difference is the sign can be taken down. I wasn't very disruptive either, I'm pretty sure even a scholar trying to do research would get a chuckle out of it (in reality, any serious scholar wouldn't use wikipedia for anything).
Also, I had to go pee. That's why I left my computer and came back so fast. As indicated by my name, I'm a guy. We tend to pee faster, but not fast enough to prevent a bad edit from being made. Plus, I have a belt. That slows you down when trying to urinate.
You got my name wrong, but anyway, I responded to you, intended to leave things well enough alone after the final warning+my response. All was well for a bit, and then, not even a full hour later, you/whoever else you're all letting access your pc and/or internet connection made the following edits: 1 & 2 on Length, which ended up breaking an image in the article. Also, the admin that blocked you(r IP and whichever of your friends was seated behind the pc this time) was Materialscientist, not Barek, and I was the one that responded to you, not Barek. ;) All Barek had to do with you was putting the school-IP template on the talkpage. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Refinancing edit
The link that was there originally was a bad link. Right after I updated it, someone came in behind me and then updated the cited source to a good link. If you'll notice, the content isn't technically cited by that source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy a007 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do u think that site is mine? Also, my edits were not disruptive. They added new up to date content and they were a lot more informative on the subjects. I added much more useful and current content that readers are looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy a007 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So now you are claiming it's not your site? That's odd, just a few edits ago in this edit summary you stated "I updated the section with current info and cited my site since I am the original author of it." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, plagiarizing would also be problematic. But as it's your site you have a conflict of interest in promoting links from it - and self-published content would fail Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Link removal
Barek,
The links I put in on the multiple Wikipedia pages link to digital newspapers, and are completely relevant to the encyclopedia page because they link to newspaper issues and articles that discuss the cities and counties that I edited.
Per [[3]] "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."
Newspaper articles are relevant to encyclopedic pages about cities and counties and provide neutral and accurate reference material for those wishing to be linked to further information about a county or city.
Your personal opinion of their appropriateness goes against standard practice on Wikipedia, as well as going against the content guidelines linked above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal opinion. As per WP:ELYES, links to neutral and accurate sources of information are generally allowed. Is there another place where these sources could be referred in the article, or are they just not allowed in general?
That ELYES refers to specific articles about the subject - not archives of newspapers that are (or were) based in or or covered general news articles in the city or region. In the newspaper meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline or notability of organizations, then the links would certainly be appropriate in the articles about the newspapers. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IP hopping vandal
I went ahead and bit the bullet, and blocked 2600:1014:B000::/41 for 3 hours. Hopefully that will be long enough for him to lose interest (as I am not particularly keen on blocking a large chunk of Verizon Wireless any longer than that...) —Darkwind (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, he's no big deal to me - I've mainly been ignoring his comments while revert/blocking and letting more IPs appear so we could locate the primary range. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Smith T-5000
This is from Twitter: TheFIX @TheFIXninemsn 10h10 hours ago
@markall43 @Schwarzenegger @JaiCourtney Ooh I can answer this one. Matt Smith will play T-5000 in the film.
You inserted a link as a ref, but it failed. Do you have a link to an interview or other documentation showing it was actually stated by someone involved with the film? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guidance Please
Hi, Barek. So I have been reaching out to a number of Wikipedia editors and not getting responses, which I totally get since all this amazing work is done as part of a volunteer effort. But I'm reaching out to you as well now on the same issue, so I really hope that doesn't make me a Wikipedia pest:) But here goes.
I have a WP:COI on the TransUnion article. They are a client of mine. I have been counseling them that they cannot make their own changes to the page and that we need to ask editors to review and consider them. In any case, they gave me some requested edits I quelled it down to what I think would pass a Wikipedia editor's scrutiny and put it up on the TransUnion Talk page with a "request for edit" and haven't gotten a response for over three weeks (not complaining just stating a fact), so I would really like to find someone that might consider reviewing the changes to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down as to whether the updates are ok. If they are, I'm happy to go in and do the work under another editor's watchful eye. Although, sometimes it needs a little cleaning up:) What do you think? Really appreciate any guidance you can offer. Thx!SusanChana (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thanks so much. This has been great getting all these responses. Appreciate you getting back to me! Will keep you posted. SusanChana (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cincinnati
Barek,
It WAS NOT cut and paste. I have a B.A. from the University of Chicago and taught English for over fifteen years. Just because the syntax and morphology are sophisticated and correct DOES NOT MEAN it was a "cut and paste." Shame on you! The reference provided -- mostly the book The Jews of Cincinnati, is at my home and I am at work -- meaning I did not have it with me to verify page numbers, etc. You may also check the Cincinnati Enquirer archives for further citations to my knowledge. 199.30.71.30 (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Lori S. Hansen, whose family first arrived in Cincinnati in 1850 via the port at New Orleans.
[reply]
Reinstating my additions under History
So here are some simple references from the Cincinnati Enquirer (dates, links, and page numbers are given).
Rabbi Albert A. Goldman,rights pioneer
Cincinnati Enquirer - Cincinnati, Ohio
Subjects: Religion; Judaic studies; Clergy
Author: Goodman, Rebecca
Date: Aug 23, 2007
Start Page: B.4
Section: Metro
Abstract (Document Summary)
Lives remembered Leader in interfaith relations KENNEDY HEIGHTS - Albert A. Goldman, rabbi emeritus of the Isaac M. Wise Temple downtown and a civil rights leader, died Aug. 13 at his home. "There was a lot of tension and I felt we could reach out to various religious groups in the community and see what we could do about civil rights, and particularly black rights," Rabbi Goldman told The Enquirer in a 1998 interview.
CET explores Jewish heritage
Cincinnati Enquirer - Cincinnati, Ohio
Subjects: Jews
Author: Kiesewetter, John
Date: Oct 28, 2007
Start Page: D.1
Section: Tempo
Abstract (Document Summary)
Anyone who wants to provide funding or family stories for "The Jews of Cincinnati" should contact Jack Dominic, CET executive vice president and chief operation officer: 513-381-4033; e-mail: jdominic @cetconnect.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.30.71.30 (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the formatting was malformed, which made it appear to be copied from another source. I now see that malformed material was an incorrect attempt to add a reference, which resulted in the odd appearance of the inserted material. If I have time, I'll try parsing the wall of text (collapsed above) to rewrite the attempted addition into something more encyclopedic rather than narrative. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing, it appears that much of what you are wanting to add already exists in the article with more encyclopedic and neutral wording:
"Arts and culture" section, second paragraph: "Cincinnati's Jewish community was developed by immigrants from England and Germany. They developed Reform Judaism in response to the influences of the Enlightenment and making their new lives in the United States."
"Education" section, fourth paragraph: "The Jewish community has several schools, including the all-girl RITSS (Regional Institute for Torah and Secular Studies) high school,[1] and the all-boy Yeshivas Lubavitch High School.[2]Hebrew Union College- Jewish Institute of Religion (HUC-JIR), founded by Isaac Mayer Wise, is a seminary for training of Reform rabbis and others religious.[3]"
FYI, neither of the reasons you cited for speedy deletion technically applied to this article. G4 requires a previous deletion discussion, which this hadn't had, and G12 doesn't apply because the site identified by CorenSearchBot is a wikipedia mirror. That said, I do definitely agree that the article should have been speedily deleted (probably under G10 as an attack page) as it was full of BLP violations which needed to go, I just worry about the log entry giving future editors the wrong idea. Anyways, cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I highlighted the G4 reason and hit delete (I thought) before deleting, not sure why it still showed. My mistake on the mirror - I had thought that the mirror was an static copy of the original version of the page prior to the original deletion (so would lack accrediting of edits under CC BY-SA 3.0), I see now it's a live mirror so you're right that should not have applied either. You're right that G10 would have been a better reason to use, given the BLP issues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, even static mirrors of deleted pages shouldn't lead to a G12, since their history can be restored here fixing any issues with attribution. As I said above it definitely should have been deleted, the log entry just caught my notice, that was all. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WPGC/WVEE edit dispute
I am not even getting into these childish edit wars for what reason but their is a current dispute about WPGC/WVEE and the air personalities section but KMEL has the same issue and that page still has the air personality directory listed. Just a point I know that you can not do anything but its just the interesting flaw on this site IMO that one can violate and another does the same thing and nothing is said about it. Donta1974 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donta1974 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barek, I noticed your edit to the MetLife article back in April, and I'm hoping you might be interested in helping me with some proposed edits to the page. (Sadly, though the page needs some attention, there has been very little activity recently.) To bring the History section up to date and fill in some missing details, I've prepared some draft language with sourcing here, and I'm looking for editors to review.
As I am working as a consultant for MetLife, I won't be making any edits to the article myself due to that conflict of interest. If you have a second, could you check out my proposed edits and see if they look appropriate? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barek, not sure why links are needed, OK to leave links in for 24 hours, Ronz needs to provide examples of SPAM activity - Fair? Since none exists this is pure harassment by Ronz. Naveed.sukuk (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do not get to set timelines. The templates are part of the normal process in discussions on that page, and should remain so that others can easily review the material being discussed, even after the discussion completes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the content posted is libel, false and agenda driven then unless evidence can be provided of SPAM it is reasonable for it to be removed. Naveed.sukuk (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That material is part of a community discussion regarding those links. You have already been warned; should you remove the discussion again, either I or another admin will block your account from editing Wikipedia. Feel free to engage in the discussion, but threats and deadlines will simply not result in the outcome you seem to be wanting to force. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, I think Naveed has really lost his way. Please consider blocking the account, as Wikipedia is in the real world and he is just hurting himself now. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the user's actions don't appear to technically violate WP:USERPAGE nor is he making specific accusations that would cross the line into WP:NPA territory. The templates added to their talk page aren't inserting article-space categories, so no issue there either.
At this point, I think it best to leave them alone, let them have their user-space rant. If they can get it out of their system, calm down, and discuss the links rationally - then great. If they cannot do that, then giving them a bit of WP:ROPE can help determine how they will progress which will provide clearer support for a block later if needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, sockpuppetry is pretty clear just based on the the duck test - so no real need to initiate a sockpuppet investigation. The article is semi-protected, the named account is blocked, and as long as disruption can be contained I don't want to block the IPs at this point due to potential collateral damage. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You recently fully protected the article Westfield Mission Valley after an editor first nominated it for deletion, then removed all or most of its content to make the article look weak for the AFD.. That content has been in that article for years. If the other party had a concern with the information not having enough citations, then they should have "requested citations", like everyone else does. Imagine if we all just willy nilly decided to remove every single sentence on Wikipedia that didn't have a citation without giving other editors a chance to find some. I'm all in favor of having citations and making sure that information is verifiable,, but we'd never have been able to build an encyclopedia if all we did was remove everything as soon as we came across it. Now that article mat never have a chance to pass through an AFD because the article cannot be improved upon in the normal manner. I'm not asking for you to remove the protection, just that if you could restore the content to its pre-dispute form. That way, at least the AFD can progress on an even playing field.--JOJHutton01:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All admins, without fail, protects the wrong version in content disputes - it's unavoidable that one party or the other will have this stance. If talk-page consensus supports restoring the content (use the article talk page to establish consensus), then request a change on the article talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you look at the ANI on this issue, and the AFD? Locking the article while at AFD after an editor has gutted it? Why not just speedy the article? I am asking that you revert the protection and allow editors to try and save an article that an overzealous editor has gutted. Thanks, GregJackPBoomer!18:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD appears to be headed towards a keep (or at least a no consensus), so page protection does not appear to be causing bias in the AfD !votes. Just because an article is at AfD is not a reason to suspend all other Wikipedia rules. The article was protected due to the content dispute. Non-controversial edits or ones that have gained consensus can be requested on the article talk page. Thus far, there doesn't appear to be any discussion on the article talk page regarding the material over which the edit war took place, let alone a consensus. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it was only a two reverts that had led to, what I consider and in my own words, a bit of an overzealous page protection. Especially since the reverts happened within minutes of one another and had literally stopped. But then you come along over an hour later a fully protect an article with an active AFD for over a week, when page protection was no longer needed or even warranted. The other user has decided to take a break from the alleged COI issues that led to the mass removal of content. So there isn't a reason to have this article fully protected any more. I'm just saying that it's time to remove the page protection do the article can finally be improved upon and the concerns of the other editor can be addressed without the need of making requests on the talk page. JOJHutton20:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove protection later today when I can login via pc (on my phone right now, which is harder to navigate). However, should edit warring resume, protection will be restored. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Westfield Mission Valley protection level
Hello Barek. On 12 July 2015 you template-protected Westfield Mission Valley (log). As template protection is only meant to be used for templates, or other highly transcluded pages, did you perhaps mean to select a different level? Thanks, Evad37[talk]12:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the wrong protection flag. However, I plan to remove protection entirely later today, so it will no longer be an issue (see related thread, above). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bear with me as I am not familiar with Wikipedia internal communication procedures and have not been in this situation before.
On 23 July you protected the Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theory pages after a content and editing reader dispute. That protection is still in force.
It was my addition of information earlier that day that provoked this, and as a result I was sent an 'edit war' warning messge by another editor(?) - Winner 42.
Not knowing who I make my representations to, I therefore left a message for this person as he was the originator of the warning message. You will see that my message is still showing on his talk page, but from the other content on there he appears not to be bothered about answering queries speedily, if at all.
I naturally want to take this matter further and make my defence as to why my posted information on the Sandy Hook page should remain - you will see some of my reasons on the Winner 42 talk. I know too that there are other readers who are similarly not happy that the information I posted kept being taken down.
I naturally would like to resolve this matter as soon as possible. Could you therefore please tell me what I should do next?
Talk page discussions can take time - how long discussions can take is often a surprise to new editors on Wikipedia. Remember that editors on this site volunteer their time, and so the people with whom you are trying to discuss the material may not have been back online to see your post yet. You can post on the talk page that you'll give it a week from today (usually a safe amount of time, which is why deletion discussions are also done for one week, to allow off-line persons time to see a post and reply), and say that if no reply you'll go ahead and restore your edits. If you are reversed again and still no reply to the talk page, you can try initiating a request for comment on the talk page, which will encourage additional established editors to notice the discussion. If it reaches that stage and you need assistance setting up the RfC, let me know. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you recently reverted vandalism at Lee Corso and warned the offending editor. I recommend upping the protection of the article to full and permanently blocking the editor. He or she is a long-time sockmaster who has been vandalizing that article for a long, long time and has only begun again recently because the protection ran out. Check the article's history for corroboration. ElKevbo (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to Facebook for photos of Illinois because there is not a page/link for that. it would be a great way to show people beautiful photos of nature, tourism, life and the beauty of Illinois in general. why did you remove the link? I can make my own page but would prefer to link the Facebook to a page about Illinois. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocket9244 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an internet directory. We have a community developed guideline that defines appropriate links, and the link you added is clearly not appropriate per that guideline. The link to the guideline was posted to your talk page, but here's another link to it: Wikipedia:External links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Puffery and promotionalism at Bergen Catholic article
Possibly - although it appears you reverted the content that initiated my addition of the cleanup tag. The user appears to be well-intentioned and acting in good faith; but their over-enthusiastic position towards the school has caused them to add some NPOV content in the past. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry dues
It has come to my attention that you are a sockpuppet of me, but in consulting my financial records, I see that yopu have never paid any of your dues into the BML Sockpuppetry Fund. Please rectify this at your earliest convenience, as I need the money to buy some really great stuff. All the best, BMK (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A level one warning would have been appropriate. But, given that they are an IP (possibly changes at each login), and that the disruptive edits were done over six hours ago with no further edits - I would say no need to warn at this point unless the disruption resumes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addition to web page IoT rejection. New user from 70.177.110.134 to Xydor
I added a small paragraph to the article "Internet of Things". I did so as 70.177.110.134, and have since created a user account with the username Xydor. Tried to find a way to combine the original post with the new username to no avail.
For the last 22 years I Never bothered contributing to Wikipedia. It was considered a joke for the first several years, but has now become an EXTREMELY powerful, useful resource. I have 20+ years IT experience, Masters in Physics, MCSE, etc. So I presume I am a supposed "Expert in the field". I find it EXTREMELY disturbing that to comment one must have a previously published reference. VERY Catch-22. (it's an old expression... look it up LOL). By insisting that no original information be presented, regardless of author, you short-change the entire site by excluding experts in the field from first hand information. Is this intentional? It would be so disheartening to find, for example, that Einstein's opinion on relativity had been rejected because he had no previous "publication". Or even his opinions on Quantum Theory, for which he was no expert. I'm not even sure if the following "signature is correct, but I will try: Xydor (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Xydor[reply]
Anyone can claim to be an expert. Should we take everyone at their word that they are an expert in whatever field they choose to claim? This is why Wikipedia has a policy on verifiability. It is one of the three core content policies on Wikipedia; the other two core content policies being no original research, and neutral point of view. These policies are closely related so are best understood in conjunction to each other. Subject matter experts are welcome on Wikipedia; but they are equally bound by the core content policies. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's VERY COOL that this contribution to the Web is so concise on references and sources. It's No Small Wonder that the information presented here is so concise. That being said, I find it very confusing, even confounding, to navigate the proper channels to be heard. I have a lot of knowledge and experience to share, and tried to give it, all but briefly. I don't even know if I'm posting to the right place, or even putting it in a location that might be heard. I *DO*, however, know that the driving force behind the web and initiatives such as the IoT are market driven. It seems de facto information to me.... but perhaps the average person doesn't see this. It deserves to be stated, even if it's under the "Comments and Criticisms" section. Does not the section title deserve free reign? I'm more than let down by this process. Seems like you editors are just looking for fancy citations. LOOK!: I was published by the IWannaBFamous newsletter... so I quote it. TA-DAAA! Comment cited and included. So silly... Not sure if I have the energy or desire to pursue this further. But thank you for a marvelous resource. 70.177.110.134 (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Xydor[reply]
Sorry if adding a "New Section" causes issues. I am slowly learning the in's and out's of content and contributions on this site. I respect the process... designed to assure accurate information. But it seems to me that the entire process stinks of Academia. The whole idea of "Publish or Perish" has been embedded in higher learning institutes for the last century... or two. Yet we can observe that lately, the general public are shying away from such Astronomically Expensive alternatives in lieu of practicality. Why should Joe, who wants to practice X, spend 2 years studying that field, and another 2 studying things totally outside his practice? Academia would say... "To become a professional that knows Reading, Writing, Arithmetic" [and paranormal psychology/neon basket weaving] to the extreme. This is why the major colleges and universities are struggling to justify their existence. Why shouldn't Joe just go understudy an expert for a year?
My point is: I know the field. BUT...I don't publish. Therefore: my voice is unheard. This seems really silly to me. And here I am appealing to two total strangers. WOW... more irony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xydor (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 September 2015 Oh EXCUSE me I keep forgetting to add the four tildes and my signature.... SO LAME Xydor (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Xydor[reply]
OK, I read the policy on Reliable Sources and it's much like Academia, as I previously discussed. What a sad day for information dispersal. Oh well... you guys have to stick with "the rules". Fortunately, I don't. Luckily I have lots of folks who will pay top $US for my knowledge. Best of luck to you both! If you have a chance to convey the resources that are being neglected to "the powers that be" please do so.Xydor (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Xydor[reply]
Actually, even if you did publish, you would have a conflict of interest in promoting your own material in the article. That aside, you completely overlooked the reasons for these policies. Anyone can (and frequently do) claim to be experts on a wide range of subjects; many of these self-declared and unconfirmed experts have opposing positions in the various articles in which they edit. Thus, the requirement for third-party reliable sources. This is by no means an ideal solution; but it works.
Thanks for the cleanup performed earlier at the IoT article. I caught it myself a while back but you were quicker (good luck with the comment above, by the way )! Along similar lines, what do you reckon about this edit? I don't understand it, to be honest, and it's unreferenced. Let me know your thoughts. Best, FoCuScontribs; talk to me!19:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The best approach when you are unsure about an addition is to start a discussion about the material on the article talk page - that can draw in multiple editors who may have an interest in the article to discuss the material in question. For the edit you linked; it needs rephrased at the very least, but it does link to an article that appears to be sourced and appears to paraphrase that article. The refs on that other article would need to be checked; if they meet WP:RS and support the text, then one or more of those could be used to support the added text in the IoT article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were knowledgeable about IoT; I might review that addition at a later point. The IoT article seems quite mediocre overall, and is subject to such additions on a weekly basis. It might need a full copy edit. Best, FoCuScontribs; talk to me!21:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to comment directly to [User:FoCuSandLeArN|FoCuS] but it was filtered. I'm catching on... slowly. Thanks Barek. I see where you are coming from. It's still sad to me. But there's no way for you guys to verify an "expert" so I totally get it. Meanwhile maybe >FoCuS</ can keep reading (or buying) until he/she understands. George Orwell HAD NO IDEA the level of scrutiny that was forthcoming. Maybe you guys will... meanwhile I will stop trying to contribute to global knowledge.Xydor (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Xydor[reply]
A few months ago you blocked Miko10022 (talk·contribs), for repeatedly creating articles on an non-notable footballer called Milan Nikolic (under various titles to get around create protection). Could you please re-block this user, as they have recreated the article yet again under Milan Nikolic (football player)? Thanks in advance. (Note I have posted a similar request at WP:AIV so this may already be done by the time you read this). Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no I will not I'm Matthew Barnes homer so stop going on my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballerbarnes9 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 12 August 2015
You have removed several edits from the Amish Furniture page that I have made. First of all, many of my edits were improvements to the horribly written content that should have remained even if you find the fact that I work for an Amish Furniture Company a "conflict of interest". This page is horrible. Not only do I live in an Amish community (Arthur, Illiois) and work in the industry, but the owner of the company for which I work left the Amish faith just a few years ago. We are not trying to overtly self-promote, but this page is terribly inaccurate. Some of the wood species mentioned don't even exist. Northern Red Oak, for example, is not a specific subspecies of wood. Beech is not even a hardwood and I don't know a single Amish builder who uses it,and I know hundreds. Mahogany isn't even grown in the United States and is almost always used as a veneer...which prohibits its use in Amish furniture. References like "high-class" to furniture also lead me to believe the originator of this piece is not only a terrible writer, but also poorly educated. Furniture is fine, up market, avant garde...a lot of things but "high-class" it is not and can not be. Walnut does NOT hold stain and polish well...we don't use polish, by the way, stains, paints, dies, and varnishes are the proper terms.
Whatever conflict of interest you may see, there are links to a number of Amish furniture makers in your references. I contend that only those of us in the industry are qualified to improve this page...we know Amish furniture. I am making no effort to "spam", but I clearly know a LOT more about Amish furniture than the previous contributors to this page. Yes, I work in the Amish community for a family who is formerly Amish and in a business that sells Amish Furniture online. I thought the purpose of this page was to actually explain Amish Furniture...I can do that. I was linking only to our relevant blogs, not product pages, not to a sales pitch, not to anything different than many other annotated references. It would appear you have no interest in expert contributions to this page. Regardless of my inclusion, PLEASE have someone who has a clue research and re-write this page. It is genuinely horrible.Hollyrennels (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Holly[reply]
Hi, I'm new to editing other posts, although I have added numerous items over the years.
In this case, there is no single citation, although it has been promoted and discussed by Scientific American with its readers in various venues over a period of time. Scientific American originally limited its definition of Pi Day as a date by truncating the value of π (3.14 15) and applying it to the traditional format for a year, while several readers pointed out that the value rounded is 3.14 16 or March 14th, 2016. The comment isn't credited to a single person or source, but is merely a description of a mathematical process of rounding as applied to the transcendental value of π (pi). It seems no citation is required since there is little doubt as to the veracity of the statements according to common, simple rules of mathematics.
BTW, there seems to be no way to submit original text since the citation always has to be someone else other than the editor/contributor. Am I reading this massive description of the citation process incorrectly?
This subject is at bottom the core of a big joke, so you may be taking this much too seriously.
@Ptiffany: - yes, you are understanding correctly. One of Wikipedia's core policies relates to verifiability, which states "Wikipedia does not publish original research. 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"
If your purpose is just to post joke material, you are on the wrong website. I suggest instead creating your own blog or create your own wiki at wikia.org. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the writing in this article is atrocious and factually inaccurate. A number of the furniture "styles" mentioned aren't even actual styles. At the very least an interior designer or someone with a clue should review it.
As I said, you are welcome to make improvements to the article within limits of our conflict of interest policy. Just don't continue to use the problematic references you were using.
Lastly - please be aware that Wikipedia is a community of volunteers. As a community, Wikipedia has developed multiple policies and guidelines which address article content, article structure, and even acceptable community behavior. If you have questions, I suggest asking at the help desk or teahouse help pages (keep in mind, assistance on those pages are also by volunteers from the Wikipedia community). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Yo: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. (as per policy at WP:R VAN which all admins like you should be aware of)<<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Some Gadget Geek: - I am certainly well aware of WP:WARN, which can be seen with even a brief glance through my edit history - not to mention the GIF image at the top of my userpage. It should also be noted that while editors are strongly encouraged to warn vandals, it is by no means mandated that warnings must be issued. Moreover, in this case, the vandalism was the one and only edit by an IP and had been done twenty minutes prior to the revert - even so-called "static" IPs change, so I rarely warn in circumstances where an IPs vandalism has gone "stale". I use my personal discretion when issuing warnings, and I will not be changing that practice.
On a side note, I highly encourage you to take a look at the essay WP:DTTR. While it is not policy nor a guideline, it contains valid advice when it comes to warnings such as the one you posted on this talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware of it. And to be honest, the template itself doesn't bother me. But, then you chose to go snarky and add the extra text to the end of it "as per policy at WP:R VAN which all admins like you should be aware of". Entirely uncalled for - and as you clearly did not understand the reasoning, it would have been better to just ask why I chose not to warn the IP - given that it would take minimal effort to realize that I was in fact already aware of WP:R VAN. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, that would be why I stated above that they were essays. Just stop editing my talk page - this is obviously not productive as you refuse to acknowledge your error and seem intent on repeating the obvious.
EDIT: To be clear, this is a formal request for you to stop posting to pages in my userspace - any further edits by you to this page will be reverted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this question related to an article? If so, which one? I do not understand the question, so require some form of context to be able to provide a meaningful response. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@2601:40C:8100:AEC9:E9AF:385:D4E2:4E9: - If you look at the edit made (here), you can see a large section of quoted foreign text is changed by your edit. If, as you say, your only intent is to add a photo, then I'll assume then the other changes being made are not intentional - perhaps it's a problem with your web browser? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cuyahoga river name origin
Hi, I recently added information, with a citation, to the name origin for the cuyahoga river. My additions were removed by you. I've never edited Wikipedia page before, so bear with me and my lack of knowledge of the proper protocols.
The existing name origin has no valid citation, The existing reference link does not provide any information or verification of the information listed in the summary. Nor is that information available anywhere on the web that I could find.
Rather than remove that, I simply added an alternative translation of the word "Cuyahoga" with a reference to Case Western Reserve University history of the Cuyahoga River Valley page.
Your edits were reverted because of this edit which blanked out a quote. I see now you had done an earlier edit which had added a link to the river name history. I'll restore the information about the source of the river name - sorry about the confusion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not wise to delete content from articles whose subject you have complete ignorance of [4]. You have never edited that article, you have never edited any article on Armenian architecture, or as far as I can see on any article with an architectural or archeological subject. However, if you had read the Ani article, you would have learned that there are several churches at Ani dedicated to St Gregory the Illuminator and that they are distinguished from each other by having additional names, mostly the names of their patrons. So it is a requirement to identify which "St Gregory" church is which in the photo captions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:AGF. I do not have "complete ignorance" of the subject. And regardless, that should not be automatically assumed of any editor with whom you disagree with their edits. That said, my revert without adequate explanation was problematic, and I had intended to make further edits but had become distracted by a different issue - for both of those actions on my part, I do apologize.
As to my edit - quite simply, there's no need to repeat the same text for each and every image - all but three images are of the images in that gallery are of the same structure. I had meant to break the gallery into two or three smaller galleries that could better group related images. I believe this would improve the encyclopedic value by adding structure, as well as allow for eliminating the redundant text that adds clutter. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple monuments at Ani, so it will not be clear from an uncaptioned photo exactly what structure is being depicted, especially if only a part of the monument is depicted in the photo. How are readers of the article to know that "all but three images are of the same structure" unless captions are there to inform them of that? Yes, splitting the gallery into subgalleries would also do that - but that was not what you did when you reverted: you deleted necessary caption information, did it without any explanation, and you made no edits to the article after that revert. If you want to work constructively on the article of course I have no problems with that and would welcome your input. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the gallery were broken into smaller galleries, a single header above related images can indicate that set all belong to the same structure, without needing to repeat it on each individual image. In this case, where the majority were all of the same structure, this would be a simple thing to accomplish. The remaining images can be worked into stand-alone elsewhere in the article.
On the other-hand; we don't want the article to evolve into a mirror of commons:Ani (which is already linked from the article). That layout of multiple galleries, each dedicated to a separate building, is more appropriate on Wikimedia Commons. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recent edits
I am sorry my little brother, who is an immature 15 year old, went on and edited on my account.
Is it because I added that he had a son that he abandoned Ralynte' Cox/ Champion? He not only has two daughters but a son as well.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). are myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.57.181 (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Berek. I see you have been on Wikipedia for a while, while I am new. So I am practicing simply talking to you. Hi, how are you? I am beginning to notice some things here on Wiki. BTW, have you read this? http://files.grouplens.org/papers/halfaker11bite.personal.pdf It talks about the effects of all the reverting of new wiki users' edits. Anyway, no need to bother explaining anything to me, I'll just read the documentation thanks. I undid Doc James' edit because he didn't explain why he did it, and neither did you really, but thanks. Davetimberwolf (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)davetimberwolf Nov 18 2015[reply]
The edit summary provides minimal space, but my revert did include a link to the relevant guideline at WP:RS related to identifying reliable sources. From that page is also a link to the reliable sources noticeboard to discuss the quality of sources - although I admit, that noticeboard link can be hard to spot with all the other header text. It's probably an area where Wikipedia could stand to cleanup the layout to improve accessibility. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did look at your edit. And yes, WP:BLPNAME sill applies, as does WP:3RR. Aside from the ref, it's important to use editorial discretion and justify that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject; and names of family members who are not also notable public figures will add very little if anything to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm editing from my phone through the weekend, and I generally try to avoid using admin tools from my phone when possible due to the risk of hitting the screen wrong. You can request from one of the admins linked at WP:REVDEL, or I can review on Monday. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted one of the edit summaries on the article. As to comments on the user's talk page - those comments were discussed and repeated by others - the only way to really clear them would be to RevDel everyone's edits. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, do you mind to swap the parameters on the LinkSummary template (or to omit the lh=spam, the 'tracked' link works as well without contaminating and disabling the possibility to archive when a link gets blacklisted). The 'lh=spam' parameter results in COIBot saving a useless report: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/lh=spam, since it is tracking the first parameter in the report (if you swap the two parameters, COIBot will understand things correctly). Thanks! --Dirk BeetstraTC12:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: - Sorry about that, I didn't realize the reports looked at parameters sequentially rather than how the LinkSummary template viewed them. When I use the added parameter, I'll be sure to switch them so the URL appears first. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. No problem, it is just that originally when the template was created, the 'lh' parameter wasn't there, and COIBot just took the first parameter .. If I get around to it, I may update the algorithm in the bot, in the end it is better to consider this a bug in the bot. --Dirk BeetstraTC06:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed the other articles; I had thought it was just that one article so was just going to do an RFC on the talk page. Seeing as it's more widespread, I'm now thinking it may be better to start a discussion at WP:ANI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion belongs on the article talk page, not on my talk page. That said, the main statement of value from the first articles is "We think the first Hyperloop will be built in a country where there’s a lack of infrastructure and less regulation", as the other countries are only mentioned in passing without so much as a hint to the cities served, and no clarification of if there are discussions taking place or if they were just mentioned off the top of his head as potential places they might contact at some point. The second article justifies mentioning China in the article, as it confirms the cities being proposed as well as specifically stating that discussions are underway.
Hello Barek, Many thanks for your comments to the above unregistered IP regarding the vandalism to the Voyager Golden Record article. Like yourself, I have no idea how the warning went to the wrong IP, unless the alterations and warning went out at exactly the same time. I can only apologise if this happened. However, there is no excuse for the IP's name calling. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editing
About the pages I have discussed this, but until now no one showed interest. Moreover,you have made a mistake in the page 2015 in film by putting the numbers of grossing films in right order.Why don't you revert it back to the previous form;They are better in that way. User talk:2.86.255.196
My only edits to the page have been to (a) aligned the numbers to the right which was an undisputed change when proposed on the article talk page, and (b) to revert edits which selectively changed the format of some but not all entries in the table (which caused inconsistent layout). I have made NO other edits to the data table.
Additionally, your repeated forum shopping by asking multiple editors to make changes for you after others have already declined the request is forum shopping. You have been told repeatedly to get consensus at Talk:2015 in film#Disagrreement. Your continued forum shopping is disruptive and can result in your account being blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas!
Barek, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Barek, I don't mean to saddle you with more work before the holidays, buuuuut would you mind kickstarting the Talk:2015 in film RfC? Whatever the result, I'm hoping to get the issue off my plate in the next 30 days. And if you don't have time, I understand and I'll likely do it myself. It was just that you offered. Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about not getting that done sooner. I 've been travelling the last week or so, but should be able to work on the RFC tomorrow evening. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, as you can see from my contrib history, I've been busy in real life - I keep hoping I'll be back to complete this, but at this point might be better to start one yourself or to request assistance from the project talk page. Sorry again for not getting to this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Reversal
Hi Barek,
I noticed you undid my edit to the Bear Creek High School page. I am not upset, however I am curious as to what prompted the reversal, as I felt like I was adding useful content to the page. Thank you! Macintosh123 (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macintosh123 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were a few different concerns. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so promotional wording should generally be avoided (unless directly sourced to a third-party reliable source). Related to that issue was that the added material did not provide any sources to support the claims made. The last issue was the excessive name dropping; per WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS, "The names of current and former teachers should only be included if they are notable in their own right (for example, they are published authors or they have won a teaching award), or they have been the subject of multiple non-trivial press coverage." - likewise, the list of drum majors goes against the article guideline at WP:ALUMNI "alumni to be included must meet Wikipedia notability criteria". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see you recently blocked a user for vandalism. The user is an IP from Argentina who was attempting to add "nexshpr1543" (or variations of) to the code of various articles. I searched for "nexshpr1543" in Google, only to find it has been added (and reverted) in other Wikipedia articles (again by an IP from Argentina) and it is also found in other webpages related to WP content. I'm wondering if you know what the purpose of this is? Thanks - theWOLFchild06:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I've seen a few IPs involved with this in the past, although this active one had seemed to be static for a week or so, so I gave a longer block than I normally would for an IP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
