Jump to content

User talk:Barek/Archive 2018

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Notice
This page is an archive of past discussions from User talk:Barek

Please do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

Regarding recent deletion of edit

Can we add external links to the known issues section. Astral Destroyer (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Astral Destroyer: If you have news stories or other coverage of the issue, feel free to post them here. I can help you format them as references for the material. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-galaxy-s7-edge-pink-line-display-problem-issue-744845/

Even Samsung has officially responded. Astral Destroyer (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Astral Destroyer: Thanks! Those will work perfect for mention of the issue - I'll revert my removal, and add the refs you provided. But, the ref doesn't appear to mention the possible cause being the "flex cable", do you have a ref for that too? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The flex cable reasoning is mostly on xda and Samsung USA user forums. Some people claim to have solved their problems by heat molding the flex cable. https://us.community.samsung.com/t5/Galaxy-S-Phones/S7-edge-pink-line-down-screen/td-p/11959/page/52 https://forum.xda-developers.com/s7-edge/how-to/samsung-s7-edge-pink-line-reason-t3594138 Astral Destroyer (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Astral Destroyer: Unfortunately, discussion boards don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for being a reliable source (unless those discussions are themselves covered by a news source - this safety-net ensures users don't invent claims in discussions and try to use their own discussion posts as sources). I did follow links in your other refs to find the resolution offered by Samsung. But without coverage of the cause, we're not able to mention that part in the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK thnx Astral Destroyer (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion that should probably be revdelled

Hey, while you were cleaning up crap on the Andy Reid article, you reverted this diff. Looks like prime material for a revdel. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, done. Thanks! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input

Dear Barek,

It is not my intent to violate Wikipedia's policy. Thank you for pointing me to the Wikipedia article on disruptive editing. Your input is greatly appreciated.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambabkc (talk • contribs) 15:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "comment: there is a notice board specifically for discussing external link concerns at Wikipedia: External links/Noticeboard ... I would guess this issue has been raised there more than once already, so would get a more complete response" only 17 times.
  • the bots user appears to be in charge of all reverts and is acting like a tyrant on that page that is why i want a administrator to intervene.50.254.21.213 (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to understand what issue you are claiming exists; but it is difficult to follow your writing style. I have reread your ANI posts, and the posts are difficult to follow. Please try to clarify the issue you are claiming and what action you feel is needed. At this time, I don't have enough info to even begin investigating. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. can a social media site like facebook be put on a page of a non-living notable person's biography page where the page is in the name of the dead person.?
  • example is Chelsea Manning, twitter. not dead
  • 2. can a social media site like facebook be put on a page of a non-living notable person's biography page, where the page is in the name of the foundation, but last name of the non-living notable person ?
  • 3. can the foundations web site be put on the non-living notable person's biography page, fonadation is last name of non-living notable person ?
  • example is Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan Foundation & Presidential Library. 50.254.21.213 (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if someone has a biography, you can add links to their Twitter or Facebook, but you can't add personal blogs to articles that aren't associated with those blogs. The Chelsea Manning biography contains links to her social-media pages, not to someone's blog that happened to comment on her. Does that help? SarahSV "50.254.21.213 (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming I am understanding your question correctly (which appears conceptual, not based on a specific issue): An official foundation website might be permissable; there are variables involved, so cannot answer in absolutes. Social media pages of non-living persons would only be relevant if it was in use during the person's life, so might be permissable in that scenario, again pending other variables. Any social media pages created after the death of the subject are usually not going to be allowable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.350276325002474.98207.350145101682263&type=3 50.254.21.213 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw those, but your questions above (after I asked for clarification) appeared conceptual in nature. My answer also applies to those specific examples, and matches the reply given at ANI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about them? I gave you an answer (above); are you asking a new question, or just rephrasing the prior one? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ANI thread was resolved. They answered your question. I answered your question (my answer above still applies to your most recent rephrasing of the question). The admins who posted to your user talk page answered your question. Are you just not liking the answer? I can't see anything new being asked that hasn't already been addressed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out on the flag article.

Thanks, I am a new editor and I did not know. However, if I cited a source for that, could I republish it? StarlightStratosphere (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original wording went beyond sourcing issues, although feel free to discuss it on the article talk page. I think the statement of a flag being a patriotic symbol is self-evident enough to potentially not need a source.
My bigger concern from your edit was on the phrase "One flag that most commonly is referred to have this trait is the US flag". The most common source for this type of statement would be opinion pieces which fail as reliable sources; and from a world-wide perspective, it's hard to justify. These types of statements also become targets for edit warring by nationalistic elements from countries all over the world, each attempting to insert regional sources to justify changing the country named. Best to leave out that part if a true international study can't be found to support it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree because I am British, and it can be true on that front. So, if I were to edit that out, it may be okay to republish? StarlightStratosphere (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the more generic statement of it being a patriotic symbol is uncontroversial, so should be okay to restore that part. Note, someone else may still dispute it, in which case a ref would still be needed - but I won't dispute the general patriotic symbolism statement. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there!

In 2018 the manager at In-N-Out made $160,000 in a year. They study how it can work in process. It shows about in 329 restaurants.[1]

Why is this not an encyclopedic content? And best of all Beverly Center. It will be not same. Can this be needed? --2601:205:C100:424D:B822:EBEE:6194:D68F (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both additions we're poorly written, and difficult to underatand, so even if kept would require complete rewrites. But the material had other issues as well. Beverly Center material was promotional, failing WP:NPOV, as well as failing WP:CRYSTALBALL.
As to the In-n-Out content; Wikipedia is not a forum for career advice, nor is it a jobs board. Random statements of salary serve no encyclopedic value by themselves. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing NBA and other basketball pages

Hello Barek, can you please let me know what's wrong with my edits on recent NBA teams? All links are related to those teams. About NBA, I perfectly understand and agree with you. Wiki page should not be a collection of links. But please can you give me some advice how can we approach this? As we are the only source of information about MOST of teams and players around the world. Of course it does not apply to for example NBA teams as they have hundreds of other websites posting news about those teams/players and we perfectly understand that adding our link there will do nothing. But most of the teams around the world do not have even their own website. So other media always try to refer to us and check our website for data about those teams / players as we are not the most complete, but also in many cases the only source of info about that team/player. Who else has website/page about for example a team from Icelandic 2nd women division? Is adding our links to those Wiki pages OK or not? Thank you for your respond.

Igoreurobasket (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Igoreurobasket: My only reverts were on the external links section for NBA team pages, where official team pages already exist. Official team pages would take precedence over any third-party created team page. This would apply for the majority of professional teams in the USA (major and minor league teams), as well as collegiate leagues - all of which would likely have official team pages.
As to teams in other countries, I am less familiar with those teams and leagues. I would suggest discussing the appropriateness of the links either on the article talk page, or at a related Wikiproject talk page (any relevant Wikiprojects can be found listed at the top of the article talk page), or if you cannot get a discussion started at those, you could alternately ask at WP:External links/Noticeboard for input on the links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barek, so you are saying that adding external links to teams who already have official website included is not allowed? Please, i will need some explanation as i'm new to Wiki edits so i'm not familiar with much things. Is there any way i can include those links, maybe not for NBA but maybe for rest of European competitions and leagues? Maybe not under external links, maybe under some sort of Other links or maybe even under References ? Thanks again.

Igoreurobasket (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Igoreurobasket: The best potential use on pages where official team pages already exist would be if additional relevant information is added to the article, taken from that page, it could be inserted as a ref in the body of the article. This is slightly more involved than simply adding an external links, as it involves developing and expanding article content - but that's a good skill to develop, as the best editors on Wikipedia have as their primary activity the expansion and improvement of articles. Information on inserting references can be found at WP:Citing sources, which provides quite a bit of detail. Or you can ask for assistance at WP:HELP or at WP:Teahouse where experienced editors can provide guidance. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barek, so if team don't have official page included on their Wiki page, i'm fine of putting our link to that page? And if team have official page, i can add it some Ref link from our website?

Igoreurobasket (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Igoreurobasket: My understanding of the external links guideline is that the link would still not be appropriate even where an official link does not exist. But if you disagree with that, then as I mentioned above, I would suggest discussing the appropriateness of the links either on the article talk page, or at a related Wikiproject talk page (any relevant Wikiprojects can be found listed at the top of the article talk page), or if you cannot get a discussion started at those due to low activity on those pages, then you could alternately ask at WP:External links/Noticeboard for input on the links. I believe the greater value to Wikipedia for using the website is in expanding article content and using specific detail pages as references to support those article additions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia has graduated 2nd most Nobels

All Nobel counts on university pages are based on the Wikipedia Nobel count. This count shows that Columbia has graduated the second most Nobels of any American university except Harvard. If you are going to revert the statement on Columbia's page, please be consistent and remove every single Nobel count on university pages based on the Wikipedia count.209.2.215.148 (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@209.2.215.148: Wikipedia cannot be a reference for itself. What is needed is a third-party reliable source that states a ranking. The source you provided in your initial edit lists individual counts at each university. But ranking based on those counts alone is original research. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

references issue

Dear Barek, We are a non-profit organization that publishes science articles about useful items which can help many people. We didn't realize that we broke the rules of publication because Wikipedia is new to us. We would like to know how we can add the references to our articles on Wikipedia? Thank you

~~Tati Dash 2018-03-02~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tati Dash (talk • contribs) 08:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Pot the history

Hello Hot Pot inside the history is wrong KaoruTsi (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Barek. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 06:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eight years of adminship, today.

Wishing Barek a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sushi

Please explain why you reverted my edits to Sushi. DangleSnipeCelly (talk)DangleSnipeCelly1

You're right, I should have explained in my reversal - sorry for omitting.
Basically, is seemed unecesarilly redundant to list both fish and seafood. All fish is seafood; although not all seafood is fish. So, the existing mention of seafood was already the more inclusive description. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)DangleSnipeCelly1[reply]

Vandalism claim

Hello, I am deeply offended by your accusation simply because you disagree with my properly verifiable additions. If you keep on edit warring, I will report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.70.228 (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial edits were unsourced, your newly added edits are poorly sourced, and speculative at best. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Poop

Please stop this. Despite not having any sources, this page is highly out of date. I'd appreciate it if you leave in the history, Beginning changes, and the Spongebob info. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AB365 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AB365: Please review the Wikipedia site policies and guidelines that we're linked in my post to your user talk page. Creating a narrative based on primary sources goes against WP:NOR and WP:RS. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop. But refrain from making unneeded changes to the article. YTP Collabs exist (if you ever saw one, which I don't think you have) and while I don't know a right word for it, I have not exactly seen a YouTube Poop involving "Dramatic Edits". I will make changes not involving individual research (I promise) but please do NOT touch the page afterwards. Thank you -AB365 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AB365 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AB365: And immediately after claiming above that you promise to make no more "individual research", your very next edit was to restore your original research, once again inserting a narrative based solely on primary sources. You have been told repeatedly such content goes against Wikipedia policy. You have been told repeatedly that you need third-party reliable sources. Your wishes to add content do not override site policy, Wikipedia simply does not work that way.
If you are not understanding the policies, please ask for help - either on the article talk page, at WP:HELP DESK, OR WP:THQ. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bitcore

Hello highlander Barek. Yes I think wikipedia has double standards regarding articles. I made a good draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bitcore that has been called "pure advert" by an asshole (so if someone reads it will want to buy it or WTF)? He also said no problem that I used bytecoin as reference article, because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists guidelines. No problem, if it is pure advert, than I guess bytecoin article is also a fucking pure advert and all of the bitcoin fork articles, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ma.prezentalok (talk • contribs) 17:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disrupting Wikipedia because you are upset over an issue can result in your account being blocked. If you disagree with an edit, discuss it calmly with that editor. If needed, step away from Wikipedia for a bit to cool off so you can discuss an edit calmly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:9E

Hello. Thank you for blocking this vandalism-only page. It has also been vandalizing Talk pages. Should its Talk page privileges also be blocked? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they only did it once; but if they resume, may be needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Grande

Thanks for this edit. I had just noticed that, couldn't remember editing the article, and was investigating. Turns out I had left what I thought was a reasonable explanation for the edit, and was about to revert the unexplained reversion. Thanks for saving me the work. Unschool 04:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Killinger page edits

Barek - I made some edits today to Kerry Killinger's wiki page to update it and add some sources, and later found all of those edits rolled-back by you. Can you help me understand why? I am new to editing on wikipedia, so not sure whether I need to check back here for your reply or check my talk page. Thanks for helping me navigate this new world of wiki-editing! EditorKF (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)EditorKF 5/21/18[reply]

@EditorKF: The material in the lede section was more commentary, and is redundant to the WaMu section material, so I agree with that removal; but the material covering his compensation appears to be correctly sourced, so should not be removed.
For the Philanthropy content, that entire section was poorly written. It appears to be written more as a public relations statement rather than an encyclopedic article, and violates Wikipedia's guidelines on external link usage. That content requires a fundamental rewrite. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits accurate info

Hi Barek.

I am new here and I am joining to edit because I always thought of Wikipedia as accurate and honest info or data. But, in the last year, I have noticed that orgs and tv personalities are using this as promo and only portray an image. But, they leave off facts or data that are true but just not what they want to portray.

For example. I found you from a section about an org that lists their mission and services as current or doing actively. But, there is no website or current info and it is obvious they don’t exist. But someone references the org while on TV to give them credibility and if anyone googles, they find Wikipedia and seems current so there is credibility. Make sense? So, I want to State on Wikipedia that there is no active site.

I am tired of the condescending TV people that talk down to us and seem to have elitist life but if you do a little research, you see they are flawed like the rest of us. I see people list their children. Does Wikipedia forbid listing children. Is it considered private? What about spouses or if they were married multiple times. It is still factual and can be verified by public record. I heard a lady make desparaging comments about people that had more than one marriage and then I learned she had 2 marriages but she shows herself as single. I think her 2 marriages should be listed on Wikipedia. Same with kids. She made some breastfeeding comments and then pretended she had no experience but it is known that she has 2 zdaughteers. Am I allowed to expose her hypocrisy?

There are several people like that and I want to just get the facts. As brutal as they be. Maybe they sill stop the lies and be more honest instead of spouting such negative comments to the public and making them feel bad while they are doing the same thing. At least it is out in open and they must adjust. And they use companies or orgs that are out of business but because Wikipedia makes them seem currrent, they have credibility.

I want to edit and add true and verifiable data or information but the celebs will not want if. Does that matter? And how do I cite actual sources properly and include them

If Wikipedia won’t allow all true data or info and it is just what the celebs want, then I am mistaken and I know why I had trouble before. It isn’t vandalism if it is true. Wikipedia may define it as vandalism but that is because Wikipedia may not want the honest and raw truth as celebs create a false persona and Wikipedia gives affirmation.

Thanks and appreciate the guidance and help. Depending on your answers, I may just go away. But. I hope to make a difference and one by one fix this hypocrisy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raksgraves (talk • contribs) 04:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of BitShares for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BitShares is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitShares until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But

I was sticking up for Wikipedia. 2600:1004:B10D:E41F:D9E5:1F8E:5C9A:6FE6 (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be a collection of personal opinion; instead, it reflects what is published in third-party reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on you and your polices - not interested in sharing knowledge

You have once again deleted hard, accurate work that is - at worst looking for others to read and contribute citations. Rather than have the content stand and be marked as "needing citation" while being available for other to see and add their knowledge to it. Shame on the Wikipedia organization for limiting the collection of human knowledge. I will no longer be contributing my annual donations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KryptonKnowledge (talk • contribs) 02:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KryptonKnowledge: Did you consider that maybe we require people to cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources so we know they're not just making stuff up? That maybe this is a standard that we hold everyone to? That maybe you're just throwing a tantrum over others asking you to be responsible for what you add to the site? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fully appreciate the hazards of FAKE these days. I just find it ironic that a digital publication in effect requires a previously published (likely to paper) source. I also find it ironic that the collection of knowledge and the verifiability of that knowledge are required at the same time from the same person. A true collaboration requires multiple people - so why wouldn't one person be able to put content in to the best of their abilities and other can verify (or debunk) that information. My beef is that the editors just delete the initial effort. This has obviously NOT been the case all along in the Wiki's history - hence much of the structure and initial content of Wikipedia would not have been captured. In fact, in a thought experiment on this topic, given these current policies, Wikipedia teeters on the verge of copyright infringements and obsolescence for all its content.

So, for the key parts of the content I intended to include today, I have found US Government sources to back up my content. I will look to this as a test the integrity of the editors.

KryptonKnowledge (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KryptonKnowledge: You seem to misunderstand the entire purpose of this project. All Wikipedia does is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Wikipedia is not a cutting-edge academic or journalistic source but a general reference source that summarizes specialist sources for the general public. It does not advance knowledge but brings what knowledge already exists from the few to the many -- obsolescence is a non-issue as long as advanced knowledge is neither centralized nor freely available.
The burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim. To have it any other way would open the door to fake news claims on the basis of "well it's not disproven yet." Any past failures to cite sources that you're aware of do not justify future cases of failure to cite sources.
The claim regarding copyright infringement is frankly ridiculous if one knows that paraphrasing is a thing. It's also ironic, as you plagiarized from the source you cited. Paraphrasing (instead of copying) is a basic copyediting skill that high schoolers are expected to know.
Also, the assumption of good faith is a cornerstone of this project. Otherwise, why bother? Maybe try returning the courtesy we've given to you instead of slinging accusations everyone of "not having integrity" (funny how your apparent definition of "integrity" happens to coincide with what you want). Or would you prefer that we start accusing you of not wanting to take responsibility for your edits?
Finally, the government sources you've cited appear to be a primary source. Primary sources often requires non-primary sources to support interpretation. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ian.thomson you are correct - my understanding of the Wiki project was in error, I had higher hopes. And by the way, my comments were all carefully worded and took aim at the policies and the project as an institution - not at any one person. Which is more than I can say about your subtle insults hurtled at me. You might be more considerate to people that are trying to be 'digital good Samaritans.' If I had to guess, you started off on a high road, but must have let your EQ guard down by the end of your passage - the part where it started to turn ugly - and got angry. KryptonKnowledge (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance required for reviewing draft

Hello Sir, I have created one draft about biography.Since this is my very first article I would like senior admin to review it and suggest if any modification/update is required. Appreciate if you can review and provide your valuable guidance on this draft -Nimbus 5000/Nimbus 5000/Sajid Shahid

Thanks Nimbus 5000 (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nimbus 5000. Sorry I am not online very regularly. I just saw your request; unfortunately I'm not closely involved with biography articles. I would suggest contacting someone at the talk page WT:BIOGRAPHY; or alternately you can use the talk page for user draft articles at Help talk:Userspace draft. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Michigan Barnstar

The Michigan Barnstar
You've earned this many times over 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this WikiAward was given to Barek by 7&6=thirteen (☎) on 13:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Barek. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Providing A Reliable Source

Hello Barek, so I would like on how to provide a reliable source for editing. On Cola, I changed it to May 8th, 1886, and I would like to know how to provide a reliable source. I have found a website that is reliable.


-Sebastian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor Sebastian (talk • contribs) 02:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Barek, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barek/Archive_2018&oldid=877344522"