User talk:Barneca/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Impostor?

Do you have any relation to Barnecaration (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) or is he/she an impostor? This user was going declining requests for unblocking and signing them with your name despite not being a Wikipedia:Administrator to begin with. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Shorter version: not me. --barneca (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(from their talk page) "I admit I took the persona of an established user however this was solely for the purpose of establishing a degree of authority". I have authority here?! I wish I'd known sooner. Now, I'm off to go boss some people around... --barneca (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock reviews

My mistake! I clicked the link and it went to your username, so I assumed it was you. I didn't bother to check the history. Thanks for the correction. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. --barneca (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think all the edits made by User:Barnecaration as an imposter of you either should be rolled back, or the signature changed to point to the real user. (this is an example of when, in my view anyway, it is permissible to change the words of others, when those words clearly were intended to decieve) Just stating that there's an imposter may not be the best approach for clarity. Rolling back completely might be best. ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Netsnipe got all but that particular one, but there were intervening edits so it couldn't just be undone, and I was hesitant to mess with signatures. I take your point, tho, and am going to change it now (if someone else hasn't already). Also, rollback isn't feasible because (a) I ain't an admin so I don't have that tool, and (b) intervening edits, including responses to the fake me, would make the flow of the talk pages even more confusing than they are now. Thanks. --barneca (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant "rollback" in the sense of just nuking all the stuff away rather than the specific admin restricted tool. For some reason I thought you were an admin, (else why would this user be imitating you??) sorry for the confusion. I may go look at the contrib history and just clean things, including the comments of others, saying that because this is spoofing, the replies are not meaningful. I will think. I'm pretty busy so maybe someone else could? ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you particularly want to, I wouldn't worry about it anymore. I've changed the signature (in the half dozen pages where it was still visible), and I think a rollback would do more harm than good. My signature is only still on pages where there was subsequent discussion, and I think a rolllback would make the sequence of events even more confusing than it already is. Thanks for the suggestion, though, I had assumed all of the edits were reverted by Netsnipe, and until your suggestion I hadn't gone thru all of Barnecaration's contributions to make sure. But I think it's all resolved now. --barneca (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly thought he might contribute in good faith, and he agreed to some behavioural standards that were his downfall last time. I was about to ask him what that mainspace edit was all about (assuming good faith that it wasn't vandalism), but he threw up the "retired" template before I could (I got edit-conflicted). Now, it seems pretty clear that his intention was as Lar stated on his talk, and so I have readded the sockpuppet template and had the account reblocked. Quite simply, there was no harm in trying, because he shows some 'clue', even if he applied it in the wrong way. Daniel 03:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You have more faith in your fellow man than I do! Thanks for the explanation, and all's well that ends well. --barneca (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Rfa talk page

Hi there, please fix my mess here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Nightscream 2‎. Thanks in advance. Bearian 14:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

took me a while, but done. --barneca (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!! Bearian 14:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to. --barneca (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove my entry on PDF ?

What is wrong with you?

Why did you remove a table I created outlining PDF conversion options?

You decided in less than 2 second that the table was spam and removed it? What makes you think it was SPAM? I was outlining and attempting to find out applications which read and permit editing of converstion to and from other standards. That is why I created that table!!!!!!!

This is infuriating and evil of you to be so cynical and assume that this is spam! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.218.205 (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(For anyone else reading this thread, the edit in question is: here.)

I removed it because it is an attempt at subtle advertising for cutepdf. Out of dozens upon dozens of kinds of PDF software, you add a table comparing this one product with 2 Adobe products? With helpful columns listing the benefits of this one particular piece of software? No, per long-established Wikipedia tradition, I can apply the duck test to this one. Even if you have no conflict of interest, this still wouldn't belong in an encyclopedia article; Wikipedia is not a buying guide.

I see you've re-added the link while I've been typing. I'm going to remove it again, and per the message I preveiously left on your talk page, ask you to discuss this on the talk page of the article before adding it back again. Continual re-adding of advetising can get you blocked from editing, and any external links you add blacklisted from Wikipedia. --barneca (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You removed The "SPAM" again?

For heaven's sakes I only know two freaking pdf generation tools which is cutepdf and acrobat professional. Did you think for a minute that I used those two as a "Starter" and that more applications to be added was my desire and intention? I was hoping to START a table so people could start talking about options for PDF conversion!!!! Why are you so cynical? and pessimistic and so negative? How do you want me to frame the conversion options? I would like to learn what options I have in order to convert PDF to html or word? Where do I go for such conversion options if not a wikipedia article?

Cutepdf is FREE! I am not associated with cutepdf. What financial advantage will I get out of SPAMMING for cute pdf? My professor recommended the software to the whole class but I did not find it completely useful because it only converted ONE way (from any format to PDF). I was trying to find out about documents which will convert from PDF to other formats : like text and html. Have I explained myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.218.205 (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you have started a thread on the article's talk page, where more people can be involved in the discussion. I will make future replies there. --barneca (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am only waiting for you to respond

because I dont think anyone in the wide world would react like you have or misconstrue a table outlining pdf to html/word conversion options as spam. Please ! I am really awaiting your response only... do tell me what is wrong here ... infact I wish I could email you directly or you could IM me directly and you wold know that I am not a spammer. I hate spammers.

If I am somehow benefiting cutepdf financially or some company financially by putting up a conversion table please do tell me how I can frame my "conversion options" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.218.205 (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I can only type so fast... I have replied to your thread on the article's talk page, and part of that reply is acknowledging that I should not have jumped to conclusions about your motivation. I apologize. I still feel strongly this doesn't belong in the article, as described in detail in my reply on the article talk page. --barneca (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel your pain

[1] I'm currently "in" a wikibreak, and yet I've already got 360+ edits this month. I do a horrible job of taking a break... EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

heh. I've tried many times, usually unsuccessfully, unless someone in the real world is holding the equivalent of a gun to my head (and even then, I just reduce instead of stopping). I've considered using the Wikibreak enforcer thingy, but I know I would just start editing as an IP. I wish "on request" hardblocking wasn't against policy; the IP I use for 95% of my edits is static and not shared. Anyway, I guess that wouldn't help you, as you could just unblock yourself...

Even better; I just racked up 90 or so deletions on Commons. Apparently, I'm only a "break" from Wikipedia. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:ACC

Hey, I saw that you mentioned that the user requesting User:AbhiJeet has created another username, what was it? The requesting user is likely User:Viran, and, any new unames should be blocked. So, if you wouldn't mind, inquiring minds would love to know :) SQL^{Query me!} 09:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, I thought it was quite a coincidence that they chose a name with a history, but I didn't know what the history was, and didn't bother to check with Ryulong (probably should have). I said that because here, the same IP requesting AbhiJeet changed their request to 19, and an hour later, here, Siddhartha Gautama (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) modified that request. My Wikipedia time is severely limited on weekends, so hopefully that helps; I'll try to check back in later today to see if you need anything else. --barneca (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep an eye on that account, the contribs don't seem to mesh up with Viran.... (Heh, that user was my first death threat on Wikipedia :) ) SQL^{Query me!} 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at a particular name here, I'd say the odds are pretty high. Death threats, huh? Good thing they pay us so much money. If it wasn't for the generous hazard pay here, I'd go over to Citizendium. --barneca (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As Siddhartha Gautama said in Kalama Sutta... (*Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing ;

• nor upon tradition
• nor upon rumor ;
• nor upon what is in a scripture ;
• nor upon surmise;
• nor upon an axiom;
• nor upon specious reasoning;
• nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over;
• nor upon another's seeming ability;
• nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher."
• Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.')

So Barneca, ask this SQL where I made death threat and read my all posts on that page in order. I was trying to convince that in our society we punish person in accordance with severity of crime. If you park your car at wrong place, punishment is to fine you. Police can not hang you like saddam husain and police can't fine you again and again for same mistake.

OK, SQL. I am tired of fighting with admin for allowing so much spam, bio, music albums, video game, porn articles. This is not meaning of encyclopedia. While new page patrolling I have seen thousand user who write article about company in professional way in just first edit and vanish. Nobody dares to tag SD it even if they do not comply WP:CORP. They came inside and hide for years.

And you, Ryulong. I had told that if I choose you people can't stop me. Do you have ability to stop thousands of spammers who use single purpose account to create articles like mywikibiz? You can't. You have lost this war. I am really disgusted with this spampedia, biopedia, albumpedia, gamepedia, pornpedia.

I know chain reaction by you. Do it. I was also user TRIRASH, Abhih, Triash. Did you noticed me? I had warned you people. I had begged to allow me to use one account. But yours brain is eaten by power. If I want, I can continue. You can not catch me. But I don't want. I deliberately left track of this account for SQL. Do you think I am so stupid to request account connected to my past even after seeing that SQL is handling requests?

I proved what I wanted to prove. I saw every corner of wikipedia. I am just disgusted. I am leaving. Even if you don't trust me, it doesn't matter. Thanks. neo 20:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hah! Ahh, ryulong got him :) SQL^{Query me!} 22:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-blocked, I thought the username you pasted, was that account... Sorry about the rant he left on your talk... SQL^{Query me!} 20:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, getting a rant on my talk page is fine, it gives it character. This time, they aren't even mad at me. --barneca (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for revert

Here I am a vandal fighter happily reverting vandalism and I don't even notice that my own user page is vandalized - because you reverted it right away. Thanks. :) Sbowers3 02:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. --barneca (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

10 months???

Welcome to Wikipedia. Hope you realize that at least 90% of what you've read on this site was written before you ever joined. Cheers, -WikiSkeptic 16:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the belated welcome. I don't really get your point. --barneca (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

It's not the first time. The guy is vandalizing articles to remove links to a particular Buddhist sects' site that he believes is a cult. He needs to be blocked for a while, but never quite pushes it far enough, going away for a while before coming back and doing it again. GlassFET 21:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. --barneca (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Idiocy

You're not a complete idiot. There are plenty more errors to make in the future! ;) --Stephen 22:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

True, I guess I'm an incomplete idiot. :) --barneca (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

sandbox

where is the sandbox? the link linked me to that page.

WP:sandbox. --barneca (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: rvv on Speedwell (ship)

Thanks for the catch. I hit the rollback button too soon and was just getting ready to fix my mistake there.

--Quintote (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Happens to me all the time. I wasn't correcting you, we just edit conflicted; i didn't know you'd partially reverted, or my edit summary would have been different. --barneca (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

I would like to nominate you for adminship, on 31 December 2007, or 1 January 2008. Would that be acceptable to you? <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 22:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you, Dreamafter, I appreciate the confidence. I'll reply in more detail tomorrow (leaving my computer for the day in 2 minutes). --barneca (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dreamafter, I assume you know I've tried before. Great minds think alike; the timeframe you mentioned was exactly my original plan (approx 4 months after the first one, and I liked the feng shui of trying again on the one year anniversary of my first Wikipedia edit).

However, there were a couple of reasons people gave for opposing besides my dust-up with BorricuaEddie, and while I've worked on some of them, I've put off some others. December is usually an extremely busy month for me, so I'm not sure how much time I'll have to address them. If December goes well, the plan above sounds good; if not, there's no rush, and I'll try in early 2008.

Also, I've had a couple of people offer to nominate me when the time comes, but I'd be honored if you want to join them and co-nom. I'll let you know when I think I'm ready, when any and all co-noms are available, and when think my schedule will allow for another "week from hell". Thanks again. --barneca (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Frightened and confused?

If you want, I can post the monobook.js article here so you can understand it better when you go to install WikiBreak Enforcer. I've read the article before, and it's actually got some pretty cool stuff in it. Best, --Gp75motorsports 00:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, replied on your talk page. --barneca 16:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for the revert on the Fides Romanin article. I greatly appreciate it. Chris 01:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Thank you for writing all those articles. We all have our niches, yours is harder. --barneca 01:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

re: WP:ACC

Ah thank you. It said I couldn't create the account because it was too similar; perhaps I was going about it incorrectly and I could have while logged in?

And yes, thank you for the feedback on my user page. It's very important to me that things look good to everyone (read: pretty *and* usable), so that's nice to know. I'll be experimenting around with it in the next couple of weeks again. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 20:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

replying on your talk page. --barneca 20:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Did a little redesign now (though probably more to come). How does it look? Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 04:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Cleaner, cheerier, much easier to read. I like the help page you "stole shamelessly" from JzG; I may steal it shamelessly from you... --barneca (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Judgement Call

I saw your edit to Humanzee, and you did what I would have done had I noticed it. That edit alone wouldn't have made me revert, but when you look at the rest of them, it's pretty unlikely that he made one and only one good edit.Kww (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kww. I've actually followed up on that with a note about that whole section. Amazing the stuff you stumble across when you're doing vandalism reverting; one of the reasons I do it. Not sure of my footing on content forks (which might be an exaggeration in this case), so if you have an opinion there I'd love to hear it. --barneca (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Support

Your kind note is much appreciated. I shall reply as soon as poss. It's people like you that keep me at this project!! Thanks. Pedro :  Chat  10:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:ACC question

Im new to wikipedia so I dont know too much, but your the one who replyed on my username allowance page, The user was created and never logged in, no contributions, no talk, nothing at all, can I just get the account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.220.137 (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that page can sometimes degenerate into a shorthand that only the clerks and admins understand. I'm helping out on that page, and my comment was providing information to the admins that can create that account for you. You wouldn't know it to look at it, but that is basically a recommendation that your account name be created for you. An admin has to come along and actually do it. They usually come by 2-3 times a day, and create several accounts at once. So hang tight, and the account should be created for you in a few hours. I'll cross-post this to your IP's talk page and to WP:ACC in case you aren't wathcing my talk page. --barneca (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, hopefully I get the account.

I'm sure you will, they approve that kind of thing all the time. --barneca (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Better use of template:ACC

For your information, if you use {{ACC|s|name|reason,}}, it gets expanded into: Similar to Name (talk · contribs · account creation) reason, but should be created by an administrator shortly. - a message which is slightly more friendly to the newcomers. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Testing...

Similar to Barneca (talk · contribs · account creation) created Dec 2006 with negligible useful contributions, but should be created by an administrator shortly. --barneca (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you're right! Thanks. And congrats. --barneca (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Ah dear. I'm like that sometimes. Heh, and I see your contributions, pretty impressive I must say. :) Best, Rt. 21:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. I'm just egotistical enough that I like hearing people say stuff like that :) . I snuck a peek at your contribs for the last few minutes (to see if you covered everything), and saw your additions to User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological)‎. I had no idea that existed, so it's actually a Good Thing you were faster. I learned something. --barneca (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Assistance Request

Hi, I'm "B. Johnston", although at this time I cannot prove it because I suspect my email address is 'eating' the wikimedia confirmation emails. This makes finding out my new password difficult. Is there any other way to prove who I am, via the email on the account and to have the password altered to something known (until I can log in to change it, of course). Or, am I out of luck? Feel free to take this conversation to an email base via the email on file for "B. Johnston". Thank you. -- 209.171.43.194 (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sending you an email now. --barneca (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sending you an email now; there is no email address on file for this account, (because you haven't logged in to set the swtich). I'm not an admin, so I don't have all the tools they have, it's possible you're out of luck, but wait a little bit and I'll see if there's something I haven't thought of. I've asked an admin about this, and will let you know here when they reply. I'm about to leave for the day, so I'll be back in about 12-16 hours; if you can't wait that long, things might go quicker if you discuss this with User:Jj137, the admin who created your account (assuming they're online!). Otherwise, I'll check in tomorrow. Good luck. --barneca (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, forgot to say: have you checked your spam filter? Different systems work different ways, but usually there's a way to look thru your spam if you really want to. If the wikipedia email is getting "eaten" that way, you might be able to find it, lodged between viagra spam and the email from the deposed Nigerian vice president... --barneca (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I confirmed this was the same person.   jj137 ^♠ 01:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, B. Johnston/209.171.43.194, here’s the deal:

1. I believe it’s you; the admin who created your account confirms that this is the IP that requested it.
2. The admin sent you a random password, so they can’t give it to you themselves.
3. Neither I, nor any admin, nor even any bureaucrat, can reset your password or change your email.
4. Technically, I believe a bureaucrat could rename the account, making it available to create again. However, practically speaking, this would be a complicated process taking many steps and perhaps a few days (the bureacrat will have to rename the account, and then you'll need to go to WP:ACC again to create it new), and in any case I’m not entirely sure a bureaucrat would be willing to go “out of process” for something like this anyway. You're basically asking to usurp the account, which is normally not done for editors that haven't been here a while.
5. So, my first recommendation is to choose a new account name (for example, User:BJohnston and User:B Johnston are both available). If it’s so similar to User:B. Johnston that the software won’t allow its creation, you can go to WP:ACC again, explain the situation, and an admin will create the account for you (remember to choose a new email account! I’ve had no problems getting Wikipedia email on gmail).
6. If, for some reason, the exact name User:B. Johnston is very important to you, I’ll see if I can sweet-talk a bureaucrat into moving the existing account out of the way; the worst that can happen is they can say no, but be prepared for that.

Please let me know what you’d like to do, or if you do create another account, let me know it all worked out. --barneca (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The denouement, I suppose, is this. Thanks for the assistance and aid in getting this set up. - BJohnston (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)