|
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
| | This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barek/Archive_2017. |
Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.161.102.67 (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to edit the Megan Kelly birthplace only to get back a nasty email about vandalism, Please reference her own book "Settle For More" Page 19 where she clearly says she was born in Champaign,IL .[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Builder4521 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ^ Megan Kelly Settle for more page 19
- @Builder4521: I'll look at it again and update once I reformat the new reference you just mentioned. Sorry for any difficulties or confusion. Your initial edit changed the location, but left in place the old reference. I see now that you tried inserting the book name; but because of the way it was done, it was not clear that was what you were doing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. - Barek (talk • contribs) -
- Hi Barek, you should receive an email confirmation shortly confirming that I've activated your UTRS account. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
 Administrator changes
 NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67 Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
 Guideline and policy news
 Technical news
- When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
- Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
- The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
 Arbitration
 Obituaries
- JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
... has also created VrrayBadBoy6433 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), at least the fourth account by this individual. Cheers! —ATS 🖖 talk 02:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Turns out this may be the same individual who started vandalizing in 2006. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the list ... some of the oldest ones on that list give a block reason claiming the users appeared to the blocking admins to be socks of indef blocked Randallrobinstine (talk · contribs). The older sock reports exit (rpt1,rpt2,rpt3) - and admins can still view the now-deleted LTA page at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Randallrobinstine.
- Have you already reported the user at ANI or another board? It may be beneficial to get more eyes on this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I tried a malformed SPI, since deleted. I'll check the options, thanks. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I was just checking prior to my starting an ANI or SPI. If you SPI was deleted, I'll go ahead and initiate a new one. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Rpt created at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Randallrobinstine. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Should 6433 be blocked preemptively? —ATS 🖖 talk 21:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've blocked that user now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I made the first edit, you informed me that I should include a reference. I did that and changed the edit (so a 2nd edit) so that it was supported by the reference, which it was. The second edit specifically claimed that King continues to face criticism for not investigating right-wing terrorists. He does face such criticism and I provided references, with links, to such criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.78.3 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Your third edit added sources. And those sources do not explicitly state what you are adding. You should be taking your edits to the article talk page to get consensus on the material and the appropriate phrasing instead of edit warring - particularly now that you have re-added the same material five times now and are well past the 3 revert threshold for potential blocks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask why you reverted my edit about "Historical rankings of presidents of the United States". I moved the line about Trump to the bottom, since it was pretty obvious.
I would just like a simple response, as I despise edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fierysunset (talk • contribs) 23:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the confusion; please check the edit history on the article. Almost immediately after my revert of your edit, I made a second edit (even has the same time stamp it was so quickly afterwards) which reverted my revert - the edit summary on that second revert was "rv self - clicked on revert in error". Again, sorry for the confusion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barek,
I've added some content and references on the houseboat page that I thought were appropriate. I added a small section on the part of Canada and I'd like to expand on that further as I think Canada has one of the bigger playgrounds for houseboats and I consider myself very knowledgeable on the subject having researched and reviewed all the houseboat rental companies in Canada. In the external links I added canadahouseboating.ca site as I am the admin there and write reviews of houseboats on that site. I don't think it is out of line and I only did that as I noticed all-about-houseboats.com was listed there and think it is similar although it has a lot of ads on it and mainly focused on United States.
I would like to contribute and highlight a bit more of what we have in Canada for houseboating.
John
Advadm (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The site canadahouseboating.ca fails multiple criteria of Wikipedia's external links guideline, and does not meet the threshold of being a reliable source. Additionally, you have a conflict of interest in adding links to the site - which also goes against our conflicts of interest policy and anti-spamming guideline.
- If you have access to reliable sources (trade journals, news stories, etc) I suggest using those as your sources, and discuss your desired changes on the article talk page if you have any conflicts of interests with those. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barek,
I'm not sure if I"m replying the proper way. I looked at the sources guidelines and thought websites count as a source in addition to trade journals. Regarding the external links why is all-about-houseboats.com allowed to be on there and what is the difference? Also I don't understand the value of houseboatmuseum.nl there as it's an actual business rather than a source of information. I'm not asking to be critical of them but when I saw what those links were I thought it would be ok to add canadahouseboating.ca In terms of referencing facts and information about regions where houseboats are found and where rentals exist, this information took a week of research and all other sites don't have a full list and it's not something you'll find easily on your own in a google search as most of these companies are not indexed properly and don't show up in maps search.
Let me know if it's ok to write a guide and summary for Canada here that I'd like to share and reference.
Thanks for the help and information.
John
Advadm (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for pointing out all-about-houseboats.com - that one should also be removed. For the link at houseboatmuseum.nl; as a general rule, official websites for museums dedicated to a subject are usually allowed, although I honestly don't know enough about this particular museum to know it's value to the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Self explanatory. Please redact the names per our legal request. Mr. Downey and MrAukerman are not related
this subject matter. Inclusiion of the names constitutes criminal cyber harassment, as this office has tried
Unsuccessfully to redact the names on many occasions. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.138.10 (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attempt at legal intimidation for further discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WTH was that? Anmccaff (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Just to flesh out my question, that looked suspiciously like some AnonoTroll with some admin privileges, which strikes me as a very Bad Thing. Anmccaff (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I commented at WP:ANI#Cleanup on aisle Ponyo? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You say my edit was not constructive. My edit removed a piece of opinion which cited a reference which is an opinion piece by an unqualified online blogger. The reference doesn't even link to the online blog website which makes it look like a book reference. I've corrected this page to remove the poorly referenced opinion and in doing so make the article more objective. This information was included in my description of the edit and you are the second wiki editor to ignore the notes and restore the opinion and bad reference.
I've seen Daily Mail references removed on here again and again (I believe rightly so). This behaviour just suggests it's lip service and the low quality status quo will be maintained. I wont bother reverting the edit a 4th time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.250.40 (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused by your categorizing environmentalnutrition.com as an online blog. If you do not believe it is a reliable source, I suggest you start a discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard, or alternately you could start an request for comment on the article's talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I saw you restored the table in the article. The information in the table is incorrect, the percentages do not add up. Could you look into it? 143.165.48.50 (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah looks like you did, thanks! 143.165.48.50 (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I fixed the percentages per the ref in the same edit where I restored the table; the percentage for Oppo had been off. Thanks for catching the error and drawing attention to it so it could be corrected. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Longerich does not mention the US in p. 307 Henia Perlman (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He spoke to me in a condescending manner. I responded. End of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRACK66 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is never an excuse to violate WP:NPA, as you did in this edit. Discuss content, not contributors. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry...but I disagree. Far too many of the editors on Wikipedia think they own the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRACK66 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to disagree with me; but if you continue to violate Wikipedia site policy listed at WP:NPA, you can be blocked. It is simply not acceptable, and repeated violation of the policy will have consequences. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @BRACK66: I did not write in a condescending manner. If you check the history on that article, it's the common reason given: we don't need a count to know that one award was earned.
- Sorry you feel that I'm acting like I'm owning Wikipedia, I simply removed your addition of counts and added a comment . They club article where you added it didn't have it as it wasn't needed. That's been the WP:CONSENSUS on that, and most football articles. That you called me a name on my user page rather than my talk page is problematic. Had you gone to my talk page, you would have seen that you would be best to discuss article-specific issues on the article's talk page. Had you gone there, you might have seen that your addition of "(2)" was removed by another editor as well. But Barek is right, your choice of language is not appropriate. Feel free to explain why you think the counts of awards won are needed or somehow improve the article.
- Thanks to Barek for letting me know that I was involved. If you would rather this conversation be held elsewhere, I can move it (or you can). Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting talk back please.
I am new and don't understand Wiki rules.
Can you please explain to me the your reason for deleting: For France, Eichman had obviously also included the Jews in the French territories in North Africa. Estonia i[
What does " (rv further to eliminate mangling of page layout due to inappropriate use of "nowiki" tags)" means?
Thanks.
Regards.Henia Perlman (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The edit I reverted in that edit had contained at a
<nowiki> tag (actually, reviewing now, I see there was at least one more further down on the page), which had messed-up the page formatting. The version of the page prior to my revert can be viewed here. The tag had the effect of disabling the page formatting coding, causing a big block of run-on text and wiki code which should have been formatted as a dozen or more paragraphs, section headers, photos, and a table showing attendees. I therefore rolled back to the last stable version of the page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Barek,
I never contributed to Wikipedia before. A client of ours brought up the fact that algorithms like Elo are not mentioned on the Crowdsourcing page. We think that is a pretty big oversight. Crowdvoting, in particular, only works when you use something like Elo. Is there a way I can write that sentence that makes it less promotional?
Thanks,
Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDQuigley (talk • contribs) 20:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @TDQuigley: It appears that you may have a conflict of interest in promoting Elo. In which case, it's highly recommended that you propose article changes on related article talk page rather than within the article itself - in this case, the related talk page would be at talk:Crowdsourcing.
- Even when conflicts of interest don't exist, it's recommended to discuss disputed article changes on the article talk pages, so as to draw in additional persons who may be interested in the particular article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Barek: Thanks! That is very helpful. I will suggest changes at talk:Crowdsourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDQuigley (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that there are no replies to your post as yet. I'm travelling a bit this week; but will comment on it by the end of the week. There are also several "wikiprojects" listed at the top of the talk page, I may post a neutral comment on talk pages related to a couple of those as well, to try to draw some additional participants onto the page to discuss it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You just reverted some linkspam. Please block the IP if possible per block evasion/DUCK as it is the exact same crap added by the blocked sock just down the page history. Also please consider reinstating protection which expired on the 12th. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing out the socking, I hadn't been aware of that history. It looks like the IP may be dynamic, as they have used different IPs in the past, so I won't be blocking the IP at this time - but I will reinstate the page protection due to the resumption of socking following expiration of the prior protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I also found the same linkspam on Warsaw, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), so have cleaned-up that article as well. If the sock begins disrupting that article as well, please let me know. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Watching Warsaw too. Surprisingly I wasn't already. Old stomping grounds. John from Idegon (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Barek. Understood about not linking to outside websites. But I feel the content I added to the article -- that payments could be processed via real-time, delayed or in batch -- is relevant and new information to this article. FWIW. I'm new to editing and not going to start a fight about it. Barnesstorming (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Barnesstorming. You may have misunderstood my reasons for removing the links; having external links is not a problem in itself - but the additions do need to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for external links which can be found at WP:External links. Likewise, any links used as a reference needs to meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable source, which can be found at WP:Reliable source.
- As to the content - material does need to be sourced to third-party reliable sources (such as general business journals, industry-specific journals, news, books, research white-papers, etc); advertising content is rarely going to meet the threshold of being a reliable source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Barek for letting me know about the linking guidelines on Wikipedia. Still grappling with what we can do as editors on the wiki pages! KarNik Chronicles (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your dates are incorrect on the World Tomorrow television series. Our holdings are from 1972 through 1994. We just finished duplication of an order for the entire collection on hard drives. The website link to the dates you provided is incorrect. Sorry.
Eric M. Graf
Public Service Office
Motion Picture, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound Division
Library of Congress Packard Campus
19053 Mount Pony Road
Culpeper, VA 22701 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.211.189 (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not my dates, they are the dates published on the website of the Library of Congress. Wikipedia content is based on published reliable sources, not on personal claims. Once the Library of Congress updates their official website, then the Wikipedia article could be updated to reflect that published information. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
i m just see on google about wikipedia artical creation. i was jist checking how its work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntshyadav57 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing article references to an obvious false address is vandalism. If you want to experiment, use WP:SANDBOX. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a joke for a stream mate. Just a little laugh. I undid it now that the stream has ended.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckets12345 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia; not a place for creating joke content. That is disruptive, and can quickly lead to your account being blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds yummy, lol. Anyway, the movie spammer is back at Goshen and Warsaw, Indiana. FYI. John from Idegon (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like they have only made one edit each to Goshen, Indiana and Warsaw, Indiana since the prior protection expired a month ago, so reverting is the better answer for now. Should they again become persistent, I would be willing to restore the semi-protection at that point. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just giving you a head's up. Hope your time away was enjoyable. John from Idegon (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I did add some details to Loretta Lynn post believing my sources were correct. I didn't understand why it had been removed until you added the last info on the undo. I live almost next door to the Chicken Coup (taken down years back) all that remains is the bungalow. I have investigated further and some stories actually do contradict others so maybe reality will never surface. However Loretta herself is the only source that really knows so I will leave it alone. I doubt anyone will visit here on Kent Road where she was talent spotted for Zero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:79AD:CD00:F178:6F38:9B22:587E (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sending me a message. I found a link here about real estate -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Lake_(Waterford_Township,_Michigan and I thought it would be helpful to have a link of all the real estate subdivisions. Should I contact the webmaster at thepernateam to see if he can make a page without real estate listings?
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarvisteam (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jarvisteam: thank you for pointing out the inappropriate link on Geneva Lake (Waterford Township, Michigan), so that article could also be corrected to meet Wikipedia external link and referencing guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Barek,
What other articles do you wish to me to write.
I am a former semi pro cyclist, I have lived with 2 world champions and several olympians are old friends.
I built a custom bike in 2015 which won the 2015 bike of the year in the largest world-wide bike award competition to date, hosted by weightweenies forum.
I went to MBA school for 2 years in Prague with a small class of 15 people. My friend Adriana is now mayor of Prague.
I've been working on Price Comparison services for 15 years.
I am a strong supporter of the European Union Commission and their Anti-Trust case against Google.com in the EU.
I have been in contact with the VP of Yelp as to how we can make this happen in the US.
Google only indexes 1 page on GoSale, the search "Baby Porn Videos": http://www.gosale.com/search?q=baby+porn+videos
GoSale was the first website to include real-time prices in Google Adwords and Yahoo/Bing's search platform.
GoSale is the largest price comparison website in the US. That in and of itself is notable.
You choose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.2.229.88 (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In my post at User talk:JohnVV8 is a link to WP:Notability, which is Wikipedia's guideline for establishing notability on this site. Personal claims are not relevant; what is important are if the article topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only third party reference on GoSale.com at this time is the Forbes article, which is a trivial passing mention providing zero in-depth coverage.
- For more guidance on creating your first Wikipedia article, please see WP:Your first article, or ask for guidance via the WP:Teahouse, which is already linked via the welcome at the top of your user talk page at User talk:JohnVV8. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bug going on, or something strange, anyways that I feel you should be aware of. I just accepted this edit while I was patrolling pending changes. It seems you've somehow not been extended confirmed, or else there was some sort of bug going on at the time you edited. Just wanted to make sure you were aware. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm oddly the block log suggests that only autoconfirmation should be sufficient for edits to be automatically accepted... —PaleoNeonate – 19:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Groups:
- Member of: Administrators
- Implicit member of: Autoconfirmed users
- Maybe worth a VPT thread... —PaleoNeonate – 19:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen this before. I'm guessing as to the cause; but I think it resulted from a combination of two different IPs editing (non-confirmed), and my edit only being an undo of one of the IPs. If I had edited the article directly instead of doing an undo; or if I had undone both IP's edits - then I think it would have been auto-accepted. But the system thought my undo only applied to the one IP edit, so left the article as pending revision so the first IP edit could also be reviewed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This makes sense. —PaleoNeonate – 23:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Well I had my dinner and my peaceful time. Please tell me if my response at both the article talk and his user talk were in line. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no issue with closing the article talk page discussion. It was going nowhere productive, and certainly jumping well outside of currently supportable article improvements.
- For the user talk page warning, I never reviewed all the different user talk pages where discussions had taken place. Based on just the article talk and that user's talk page, I probably would have only gone to a level 2 or 3 warning. But, if those other user talk pages support it, then the level 4 warning may have been appropriate; I'm travelling too much right now to investigate further. But, if it's needed, I can look closer at the full chain of discussions tomorrow or Monday. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, take a few looks at John from Idegon's continual personal attacks. I have let it slide, but you might want to advise John a Wikipedia page is not worth the time targeting another person. Example, he closed one of his talk topics, which I understand is totally up to him, but in the explanation he questions the my literacy. These have been progressively more personal and has made statements that directly imply the personal attack was meant to be personal - not just a typo. Barek, I believe you have integrity. If you spent the time to warn me, I think you can spend an adequate amount of time to review his statements. AZOperator (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Barek, the last post on his talk page should be enough for WP:NOTHERE. If not, feel free to peruse his comments on my talk (which are copied over from my unprotected talk page), the rest of his talk and especially User talk:Donner60. Repeated accusations of non existent and unevidenced personal attacks are in themselves personal attacks, for which he had received an unquestionably correct immediate final warning for, after his triple down attack on Donner. It's clear there is a large lack of WP:CLUE, rising to the level of WP:CIR. This is not an editor who is here to work in a collaborative environment to build an encyclopedia. He's here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, a subject I would have never thought I'd have to deal with on a school article. Sorry you gotta wade through all this. If you want me to firm up diffs and take it to the dramah board I will. John from Idegon (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @John from Idegon: I have done one revert of AZOperator on Hamilton High School (Chandler, Arizona), so I will self-recluse myself from taking administrative action at this time, although that could change later pending further developments (plus, I haven't read the details of posts by all involved yet, so would need to review claims/concerns by all involved before I would feel comfortable taking any action). If you feel admin action is warranted, I see that Kudpung is already familiar with the issue to some extent and doesn't appear to have edited the article directly; or there's always taking it to ANI with diffs. Meanwhile, I'll start reviewing all the history/posts involved so I can comment should things end-up at ANI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, may I offer an alternative. This back and forth between John and myself has mutually digressed. I would purpose a mutual indefinite ceasefire. No one needs to get reprimanded, we just move past it and avoid each other whenever possible. If you could go through all of the communications and with an unbiased state of mind delete John's and my personal attacks. I believe that would be sufficient for two individuals who were not at their best. It is up to John if he wants to accept the olive branch, putting an end to these pointless exchanges. AZOperator (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If the two of you agree that's the best way forward, you can mutually decide to do that yourselves. Also, "deleting" posts by others is something I only do in the most extreme of circumstances, or where it's the most efficient means to cut off continued disruption of Wikipedia - I don't see that as being the case here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since I wrote it, I'm 100% in. The ball is in John's court now. Thank you Barek. AZOperator (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How magnanimous. You're going to honor the request I made two weeks ago to stay off my talk page? If you add out of guideline content to Hamilton High without consensus, I'll continue to revert you. If you engage in NOTFORUM over Hamilton on the article's or any editors talk page, I'll report you to ANI. If you wish to discuss content rationally, with arguments based on sources and policy, and omitting accusations toward those disagreeing with you of misbehavior, perversion or mental illness, I'll be happy to discuss content. If by no further interaction, you mean you are done editing on Hamilton High School or any subject broadly related to it, sure, I'll be happy to leave you alone. Feel free to avail yourself of the "Community Management System" if this is not satisfactory. Ta Ta. John from Idegon (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not exactly an ideal answer, but it appears John is going to leave me alone - even if felt a little back handed. So John you can take some deep breaths and calm down. I would suggest you also recuse yourself from Hamilton edits going forward. You should also drop that vendetta like threat, you’re a smart guy and can see how that looks. Barek, thank you. AZOperator (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That will not be happening. John from Idegon (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really John! I would like to remind you it is a webpage, it is not the end of the world. My intentions were to not edit that page, because it is not worth my time. This seems a little childish with this back and forth continuing, so I am going to quickly forget about you and go about my way. Goodbye. AZOperator (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @AZOperator: ENOUGH! This discussion effectively ended days ago; no need to keep attempting to bludgeon it back to life. It's over, move on. ANY further posts on my talk page related to this topic will be reverted. You have your answer from John, no need to continue to abuse my talk page to harass him. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My apologies for making changes before finishing my contributions to Central Michigan Life's talk page. Surelyserious (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barek. Can to chat about the link on the Redmond High School page. I was searching for the win loss record and schedule of the Redmond High School Girls Basketball team for the 2000-2004 period. That blog, was the only source I could find that had that information. Is that not a good link? Thanks. Jjd13 (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jjd13: There are multiple problems ... the biggest being that per WP:WPSCH/AG#OS, athletic sections should only "include any achievements that are particularly relevant to the school's reputation, provided that only the highest achievements are listed such that the article does not give undue weight to minor achievements" ... in other words, winning of championships (which are generally covered in local newspapers or TV programs). Reporting of win/loss records are not appropriate for articles about the schools where the team is based.
- Next issue is that it's being added as an external link, not as a reference; even if it were added as a reference, in general blogs are not treated as reliable sources (although this one could make an argument as being the "official site" of the team); and the link being added is the main page of the blog, not a subpage showing the specific detail you are wanting.
- Given all that, I'm not seeing where the link meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the nature of Comcast secrecy, the only acknowledgment I could find of the issue of their changing 1080i to 720p was on, not just a forum, their official forum, and I have found a more direct link to the exact post I was trying to use as a reference, which was actually by a Comcast Ted Official Employee, who provides what is obviously a company statement. I will repost with the direct link to that company statement. [2] Anti-Obfuscate (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You provided a reliable source for the raw facts of the resolution provided by Comcast; but the statements of "not telling", "hidden", and being "an affront" are all personal synthesis to push a particular point of view about the resolution. To call it a controversy, you need a reliable source that actually describes it as a controversy. At best, the source could be worked into the Comcast article to describe the raw facts about the resolution provided; but commentary about that resolution still needs a source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusation of Intel Typography, brand book info as link spam has no merit. Such information were never represented in the page, and the extra links were to provide both official and independent versions of the stories. Otherwise you could very well accused the edit was 'lacking notability' or 'lacking reliable sources'. -- 142.150.48.182 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
.jpg)