User talk:Barneca/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Barneca. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Video Professor (continued)

Hello, Barneca,

Could you please get re-involved in working on the Video Professor page? It is crying out for an experienced hand. Thanks, Nsk92 17:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nsk92, yes I noticed the recent activity there, but haven't looked at it in depth. I haven't done anything because (a) I got lazy, (b) got distracted, and (c) real life is reducing my involvement with Wikipedia this week. But I should be able to go over there again late today or tomorrow and get a little re-involved. ~~I know you've said you don't want to engage the other editor directly, but you might make a brief post on the talk page if there are one or two specific things that concern you.~~_{nevermind, i see you already did)} If it's just the whole article, like I said I'll take a look. However, you and I might disagree over how much weight to give to the criticsm section. --barneca (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note from WOverstreet

Barneca,

I am going to do what ever it takes to defend my alma mater. If I get baned, then at least I know I went down fighting. So many people tear into the University of Florida page it is unreal. I know it isn't an Ivy League School, but I have been posting exactly what my sources indicate. These sources are alittle over the top, however it is positive PR for UF. Who are these people to judge if the rhetoric is not right? If these are sources from a legitimate newspapers & journals, then what is the problem? I think UF deserves ARBITRATION.

Thanks,

Jimmis —Preceding unsigned comment added by WOverstreet (talk • contribs) 19:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note my message on your talk page said nothing about the University of Florida article. I have not looked at it, am not going to look at it, and know nothing about the University, and don't know who's right. My message was concerning how you've been chosing to deal with it. If you are blocked, you will not be able to "defend" your POV. There are many, many options available to you if you are having a content dispute in an article, such as WP:3O, WP:MEDCOM, WP:MEDCAB, and WP:RFC. Try one of those. But personal attacks, impersonating another editor, and using a sockpuppet are going to get you blocked, with nothing to show for it. With some of the stuff you've pulled today, I'm not sure you wouldn't already be blocked if I were an admin. Luckily, I'm not, so if you just cool off and follow the rules, you can get back to editing. --barneca (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi Barneca -- Just a heads up that you don't seem to have included a summary of your edit count on the talk page of your RfA, as is usual practice. I know that the place is rife with editcountitis, but the wannabe_kate tool [1] does also give some useful information on pages edited and consistency of editing over time. Regards, Espresso Addict 15:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, from previous RfA's it kind of looked like it was standard practice for other editors to do that, not me. I didn't want to do it myself and look dumb for violating some unwritten-but-still-everybody-knows-it-but-me rule. If you haven't done so right after leaving this message, I'll go do that now. thanks. --barneca (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's usually done by the nominating editor. Espresso Addict 15:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Which in this case would be... me! I've done it now. --barneca (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet reports

Hi Barneca, I noticed that you made this comment on a sockpuppet case. Even though you're not an admin, you're welcome to put the {{sspa}} tag on cases where the accounts have already been blocked--it will ease the load on the (very few) admins who watch the page. Thanks for being willing to help. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks Akhilleus. I'll make a note in the conclusions section that it was a non-admin close, yes? Similar to what I think people do in a non-admin close of an AfD. --barneca (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

I have closed your RfA. I am afraid there was no consensus to promote you. Please feel free to reapply in the future. Good luck. --Deskana (talky) 16:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words re: my RfA. It is a shame that yours was without success, as the work you did over the OWB thing showed just how much dedication you have to the project. Not trying to game the system but if you are prepared to keep doing what you're doing, and keep that civil head on that is all I've ever seen, then I can't see any reason why you won't get the tools. I would personally suggest 3 months though between now and your next RfA. Let me know. I'd be happy to nominate. Pedro | Chat 12:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Pedro, as usual that's very kind of you. --barneca (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, putting yourself up for an RfA, I assume, must be a rather traumatic experience, in it's own way. You gave honest answer's and I like that a lot. There are some hardliner's who scout out the RfA candidates like private investigator's willing to dig up anything in order to discredit a candidate.

You seem like you'll work on some of the points raised by the other editor's and that's a really good thing :-) - If you need any help please do not hesitate to ask me (You are, most likely, more experienced than myself any way, heh). And their opinions wouldn't give me second thoughts anyway - I'd be happy to support you in the future. And, finally, Wikipedia can all make us a little pissed sometimes! Take care! Hooah Scarian ^Talk 12:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Scarian. RfA wasn't really traumatic, just disappointing. Next time. Thanks again for the support. --barneca (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you weren't successful this time around. Perhaps the next one. As far as your request to let you know if you do something stupid, I assume that refers to your need to bite your tongue. In that case, I'm not the person to ask! One of the reasons I haven't put in an RfA is because I refuse to bite mine. :) Lara Love 13:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

:) --barneca (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey barneca, I know I'm just one guy here and my opinions really don't carry much weight, but I hope you do try RFA again. It was actually one of the more baffling RFAs I have seen recently (I don't know what you can improve on, you seemed fine to me), but I guess the big thing is not to take it personal. I'd say drop me a note when you try again, but then someone would oppose for canvasing and there'd be a bunch of "oppose per canvassing issue - this is destroying the project!" and we don't want that! I think Wikipedia would benefit from an editor like yourself being an admin, I find it unfortunate others don't feel the same. Take care, daveh4h 14:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I didn't take anything in the RfA personally, and I'll probably try again in a while. Thanks again for seeing that incident for what I think it was: a mistake, not evidence of a character flaw. --barneca (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barneca RfA spam

That's fine, don't worry about it, and I hope you're successful next time. Happy editing :-) Lra drama 14:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --barneca (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Barneca RfA spam

Thanks for your note. I look forward to supporting your next RfA. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too! :) Thanks. --barneca (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your spam

No problems, you will do fine in your next RfA!! Phgao 18:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hope so. Thanks. --barneca (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Whitefish Mountain Resort

I can't delete the Whitefish Mountain Resort article because it deletes the page edit history with it. The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires. See Help:Moving_a_page#Wikipedia-specific_help. Please use the move tab if there is consensus. Also, please read through Help:Moving a page. -- Jreferee T/C 18:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(remainder of thread on Jreferee's talk page)

Re: Barneca RfA thank you spam

Hi Barneca thank you for your message. It is a pity that your RfA did not succeed because IMHO you had all it takes. I am sorry that some people held against you some past mistakes despite the fact that you clearly demonstrated to have learned from them, which for me is what matters the most. If you decide to run again (and you should) you have my full support. Take care, Kudret abi^Talk 04:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you much. A good philosophy. --barneca (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. It was my pleasure to support, and most of the oppose votes baffled rather then worried me anyway. Good luck for future noms GreenGopher 04:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --barneca (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh, my unvarnished thoughts about that RfA are probably unsuitable for on-wiki consumption. So I'll just bite my tongue and say that I was very disappointed in the course it took; you were and are highly qualified, and I think you should try again soon. MastCell ^Talk 22:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will sometime. --barneca (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes. I saw the RfA, and though "I've seen Barneca around...I'm supporting, right?" and was thus very surprised to see I opposed...anyways, good luck in the future. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) (Drought) 02:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the reconsideration and the luck. --barneca (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you keep things from being deleted

Well i accidently deleted some crud in Phoenicia but i wanted to add some stuff. Then, i put the stuff in but i accidently deleted an article again. Now someone changed it, i need help with this thing! - Jubthenubnub

Well, OK, let me get a little unpleasantness out of the way first.

When you make edits like this and this and this and this, people are likely to revert all the rest of your edits without looking too closely at them. So my first suggestion for not getting things deleted is, stop experimenting in articles, and experiment in WP:Sandbox instead. Or, you can make your own sandbox by clicking here: User:Jubthenubnub/Sandbox. Play with editing here, where it won't annoy other people.
Second, read some of the information in the {{welcome}} template I'm about to put on your talk page.
Third, when you're ready to add content, don't just delete blocks of other people's stuff and add your own. Read the article, see where your material fits in, and add it. And use a descriptive edit summary so people know what you're doing and why. If it takes a little time to explain, use the discussion tab of the article to explain in more detail. And stop calling other people's contributions "crud".
Lastly, and again I'm sorry for the insinuation, but a completely brand new user has suddenly materialized out of thin air to re-add the exact same content you were trying to add. They wisely avoided deleting other users' content. I don't have time tonight to review it in depth, but if it's good, and on-topic, it might stay. However, I think it would be good if either User:9uietprice or User:Jubthenubnub were to retire, and only one legitimate user stayed on. One more useful thing to read is probably WP:SOCK.

I'm leaving for the evening, but if you have any more questions, leave them for me and I'll answer tomorrow. On first glance, the material you were trying to add looks like it is a good faith effort, so I'm glad you want to join in and contribute productively. --barneca (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(A very kind, but unnecessary, welcome)

Welcome!

Hello, Barneca, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

OES23 16:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Oes23, but I just created an account for a new user at WP:ACC. I've been here a while. --barneca (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Did your RFA succeed?

I was just wondering if it did, was out of town for the last 2 weeks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.137.205 (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good! My first chance since then to demonstrate to everyone that I can remain civil when provoked. No, it didn't. --barneca (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What a shame.......

Maybe in the next months ~~you might get it don't worry~~, or the following months..... or the following year..... or decade..... Never mind. 72.40.137.205 23:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers!

Naw, you weren't stepping out of line. Thanks for that :-) I don't usually check if they've had higher previous warnings and I usually go with how I think the vandalism/spamming/whatever is like. Btw, that anon above this message seems like a mean prick 'Scuse the language. But yeah, thanks again, buddy :-) Scarian ^Talk 16:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

It's true... I've been keeping an eye on the article and talkpage since the original edit warring. I only stepped in today because the anon was going rather nuclear on the article cites. You seem to have it well under control though.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

An equilibrium, but a very unstable one... --barneca (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Help request

Hey there. Wondering if you have any interest in checking the recent debates within the Islam in the United States article. There's a growing division among certain editors (myself included) regarding bias, relevance, citations, etc. It's growing more contentious, without much headway. It needs more eyes, less passion. Any chance you'd be willing to weigh in? If not, not a problem. Just thought of you as being the right kind of editor for this particular mess. Cheers--Jonashart 18:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jonas, I think I can help with "more eyes less passion"; I've got two eyes, and don't have an opinion on the subject going in. It looks a little more contentious than I'm used to, but I'd be happy to look over the article and talk page and throw in my two cents. My available time kind of comes in 5-15 minute chunks, so it can't be immediate, but I'll look into it soon. --barneca (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I, and others will appreciate that. It's gotten too polarized and someone with potentially less interest in the subject at hand may be better suited to seeing through the nonsense. Thanks in advance.--Jonashart 18:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. No worries. Actually, things have quieted down in the last week or so. No real understanding why, but those pushing hard for poor sources and biased adds have been deterred, it would seem. So, for the time being, things are ok. The article will always need work, but when isn't that true? But I agree, something more formal may be needed next time. It'd be nice if there weren't a next time, but with an subject like this, that's wishful thinking. Enjoy your trip (as best you can). You're always welcome (read: encouraged) to check the article when you find time. Cheers--Jonashart 20:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Santo Domingo

Yes, Santo Domingo de los Colorados would appear to have been elevated to the status of a province: I lived in a neighbouring canton and there was an active campaign at that time for such a change. I'll have to double check whether the official title is SD de los Colorados (as I always knew it) or SD de los Tsachila, or even Tsa'chila, which would be a more politically correct appellation, and also confirm which other cantons are in the new province. I'll get onto it after dinner. Kevin McE 18:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading the article again, what has happened today is that legislation has passed that will enable the elevation of this 23rd province, but its structures are not yet in place.

Thanks Kevin, I knew there was something more complicated going on, but couldn't figure out what. --barneca (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Advice on Meta

Just saw your recent edit to your talk page on Meta.[2] If you have your email address verified, go into your Preferences and, under E-mail, check the "E-mail me when my user talk page is changed" option. That way, you won't have to swing by just to see if you have messages; you'll know as soon as you get them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

replied --barneca (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

User talk:Barneca sock 1 isn't yours, right? If so, I apologize... — Scientizzle 22:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Sorry! Everything okay now? There was recently a rash of imposter accounts which is the exuse I'll use for going all Rogue admin on you... :) — Scientizzle 23:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The sock is mine, but my computer is acting up, and I couldn't get it to save my {{User Alternate Acct}} template, and then when that got resolved, it had already been blocked. heh. the reason I created the sock is to remind myself what it was like to edit as a new account, and a fringe benefit is, I get to see what it is like to be blocked! - --barneca (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

All is well, no worries. --barneca (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Thisisjeffsmail, moved to bottom of page

If I get banned will it just me this account or my ip?

Replied on your talk page]. --barneca (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Note from Tjpravetz

Those fake award, I had nothing to do with and deleted even before I got your message. The RFA is not a joke. I really do wish to be an admin. And as for having my friends answer my questions, that was me, answering them on there account. I didn't want to waste time logging off then back on. I do not think wikipedia as a joke, I think of it as a way to just... do something usful with my time. I understand your concern, and I appoligize for whatever bothered you. I just hope that I can help Wiki, and I talked to my friends about the vandalism and all that. I hope I can make WikiPedia the best site on the web. I am deeply sorry for what my friends did, and I hope they won't do it again.

Sorry... Tjpravetz Captain 19:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page. --barneca (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Message from Tjpravetz

I was unaware of that, and sorry for the confusion. Tjpravetz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjpravetz (talk • contribs) 21:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to report me as a vandal?

I don't know what's going on, but having made a report to WP:AIV I looked at the entry below, from you, reporting IPvandal|66.38.238.208 (which is not my IP), and the contributions, talk etc that it referenced were all mine!!? I tried my best to delete it, but continual edit conflicts - you seemed to be making a fairly complex entry - meant I did not succeed. I just hope the admin who looks at it is not too trigger happy. - JohnCD 23:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No JohnCD, I didn't. It's a little confusing. The IP 66.38.238.208 was trolling, adding something that "looked" like a vandal report to WP:AIV, when it was really a trick; the talk and contribs linked to "MyTalk" and "MyContributions", so whoever clicked on the link; when you clicked on it, they were yours, when I clicked on it, they were mine. I kept reverting him until an admin blocked the IP. No one thinks you're a vandal, as your information was only visible when you clicked on it. If i didn't explain that clearly, let me know. But the short version is, nope, we're on the same side, No one thinks you did anything wrong. --barneca (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - as soon as I thought about it I wasn't worried, just puzzled. What would have been more worrying would have been the other way round, my user name with someone else's contributions. But that's an ingenious, if misguided troll; I wonder what he'll think of next. - JohnCD 12:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)