Dude, STOP CHANGING MY EDITS!Barek, are the the person who is changing my article about the decades? The decade officially began in 2001 because there was no year zero. I wish you would stop being a control freak! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.184.49 ( talk) 00:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, actually...You would have broken that rule also, also it is the official definition for the beginning of a decade, so it isn't unimportant to anything else, also lots of people think that I am right from the talk pages too. Say that 75% agree with you. Maybe 75% of people are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.184.49 ( talk) 00:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I just read your reply again, and I realize that you must stay on Wikipedia all day to find teeny tiny things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.184.49 ( talk) 00:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Dietrich v The QueenI don't think there is any need for you to be involved at this stage, but FYI there is a message at my talk that was addressed to me and you. You may recall that you reverted some changes to Dietrich v The Queen (with an excellent edit summary btw), and I made a related comment on the talk page. That editor (as an IP) has left the message mentioned above. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Preferring the transcripts and the written submissions of the trials and appeals, I could never compete with 'reliable sources' such as those cited in support of the original article, including: Silvester, John (10 June 2005). "Hugo Rich chose the low road". The Age. Retrieved 8 October 2007. Wilkinson, Geoff (6 March 2009). "Bandits fled in seconds". Herald Sun: p. 33. Wilkinson, Geoff (12 June 2009). "Hugo Rich guilty of security guard Erwin Kastenberger's murder". Herald Sun. Retrieved 13 November 2009. - Mark A Clarkson ( talk) 22:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Fairmont-logo.jpgIf you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 04:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
EL thanksThanks on Happy Camp, California. I was past the point of annoyance on it. tedder ( talk) 00:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank youThank you for reverting the vandalism on the Generation page. Your contribution is appreciated. -- CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 18:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Having a problem with the NHRP infobox map. Maybe they changed something in the infobox? As a point of information, this is only PART of the NHRP listing, and may itself not actually be listed (per Elkman). I'm not done with this article, but maybe you could take a look in the meantime. Happy New Year to you. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 19:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Stan
Adventure TravelHi, I noticed you'd removed some spam from Adventure travel in the past, so thought I'd check an edit with you to see if it flies. I've just dropped out the 'Tour operators, travel agencies & retailers' section entirely. It appeared to me to be nothing but spam, and was presented as a key focus of the article. Also, theres a note on the talk page about an agency offering to maintain this section (As further evidence of spam) Do you think this deletion is reasonable? Cheers Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 08:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
My EntryI am sorry, I am just trying to get my company Aflexi listed as a CDN provider. What is the best way to go about doing this? We are new, but I think we should be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OI87 ( talk • contribs) 06:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Surety BondIt looks like you removed the citation from where I got the info for the information posted, then put "need citation". I have to disagree that just because something was created by a private company it is spam. You edited it within 2 minutes, yet the video is 5 minutes long. Therefore it is clear you didn't watch it before making your edit. Can you elaborate? 173.12.56.65 ( talk) 18:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I wasn't aware it was on the blacklist. That's a shame, it has some great information. I'll undo the information I added from watching it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.56.65 ( talk) 19:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Sushi, not SuchiOk, i got it. by the way i tell you that this food(寿司) calls "sushi", not "suchi". thank you. (cur) (prev) 16:26, 16 January 2010 Barek (talk | contribs) (37,381 bytes) (rv - artificial things that are made to look like suchi are not, in fact, suchi. Image is only tangentally related to subject, and does not help to illustrate text of the article.) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NederlandsNederlands ( talk • contribs)
Cruise Youtube links errorOuch! First time for that & I was wrong not to check my source better. They should have been linked to a public page like this http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=5B8F79D0A83619E5 - Will not make that mistake again! Sardine Sam ( talk) 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC) My talk pageBarek, Greetings. I'm having a problem aligning a barnstar. Could you please take a look and see if you can clear up my format problem Thank you and Cheers to you, too. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 17:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Stan
I was just joking when I said that Doughnuts where a drug. Jeez! Boneboy715 ( talk) 20:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Booneboy715
Adding LinksI don't usually use wikipedia, but I always thought that if you had something to share, that you could...no wonder so few actually use it or add to it. Wow, super controlling! So much for wikipedia being by the people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.133.39.2 ( talk) 16:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
If the website content speaks to what the wikipedia article is talking about, I don't see how it would not be appropriate. How can you just automatically deny a site without even looking to see if it is verifiable or has reliable sources? How were you made master of the internet? Are you an employee or just someone who likes to control others? This was not spam, I was not looking for page rank or no follow or whatever you said in your message. I just thought this would be something people might be interested in reading to supplement what they were looking for on wikipedia. That's what I THOUGHT wikipedia was for... but I will have to remember that there are just a few people behind the pages that actually control content. I understand why you wouldn't want spam, but why did you automatically think it was?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.133.39.2 ( talk) 16:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Well you guys obviously spend WAY too much time doing this stuff. No, I don't sit around and read rule books all day long like you apparently do. I thought I understood the purpose of Wikipedia, but obviously I was not totally correct. Thanks for the info. Just remember that things like this are what keep the average person from wanting to participate and it limits participation to the very few who are very "detail oriented" to put it nicely. I heard it's something like only 1% of wikipedia people put in 99% of the content...hmm, sounds like a dictatorship instead of a democracy. Oh well, I tried to participate. Like most things now adays, it's somewhat pointless when there are an "elite" few who are all about control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.133.39.2 ( talk) 17:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of National Motorists AssociationYour opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Motorists Association. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Commercial CDNs" Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Content delivery network. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted." - I've been adding in WINK into the commercial CDNs for some time now - I was actually up there for almost two years beofe Haakon began the removal madness, sure it was removed for the external linking, once it was brought to my attention external links were removed. I don't understand why you are policing the list in the manner you do in conjunction with Haakon (wiki editor) Akamai, Amazon, BitGravity, CacheFly, CDNetworks, Cotendo, EdgeCast, GoGrid, Highwinds, etc.. are allowed in the list - yet you are adamant to remove WINK at every opportunity. How is WINK any different? Why the constant removal? for the record GoGrid is not a CDN it is Cloud Technology that utilizes EdgeCast for their CDN - so in that case EdgeCast is the CDN not GoGrid. And yes I have read all the other profiles and they are really not that relevant - conversely WINK is equally relevant, maybe not worth its own page at this point by worth being in the list. Basically my point is if the attitude is going to be so anti-competitive perhaps it is best to remove the commercial CDN section entirely rather than removing other legitimate CDNs. It is at the point where i have to wonder if perhaps the editor Haakon is getting some kickback for policing the list - I am sure he is not that interesting in Content Delivery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldcupsailing ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Ferndale QuestionWhat was wrong with the link to the video that I used as a citation? It is from Ferndale's official sight. You don't think that a municipality's official website can be trusted? Please explain. Lou2u ( talk) 23:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
semiprotect userpage?Hi- since there's no reason an IP should be editing User:Barek, would you like me to semiprotect it? tedder ( talk) 04:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Corporate BondsPlease tell me why you feel the need to remove my external link to a better explanation of corporate bond risks? It seems to me just bloody mindedness. I am by the way a bond trader with 25 years experience in this area - are you? My interests lie in providing good information, not in 'burning books'! Peter Leahy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjleahy ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very muchVery kind of you. Take care. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 02:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Midland, MichiganCould you take a look at this Midland, Michigan#Sites of interest, and tell me if you think the link to Midland County Historical Societies Heritage Park is spam? From my reading of WP:Spam I think it is. Thanks, Asher196 ( talk) 00:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
domestic help surveyI will look up my Wiki login on my old Blackberry phone tonight so I can login properly. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in until I saw your note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.190.193 ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 17 March 2010 Piano's editI saw that you recently warned Piano and Chaos for edit warring. Have you looked at Piano's edits, especially his threats on user talk pages? He has a pretty one-sided view of WP:SPAM, and instead of discussing what is actually considered spam he's threatening to report editors for "vandalism" when they put sources back into articles and have a page "protected" just to inhibit anyone from disagreeing with him. He doesn't appear to be listening to anything that I say, given that he left my comments on his page with a "that's not compelling enough" comment. Is it possible for you to review some of this situation and at least provide your assessment? I have placed a thread at WP:RSN regarding this issue as well. Others have voiced similar things to Piano, but he has ignored them as well. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Videos do not have ISBNs (International Standard Book Number), it would make no sense for them to. Finding a book that talks about a DVD is something completely different, and you're less likely to find one talking about the release date for every season of a show. DVDs do not have ISBNs. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC) RMNPSorry -- I meant to delete the same link you did. I've run into this before, where simultaneous editing gets confused, with no conflict notification. Weird. -- Elphion ( talk) 19:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
jamesniehues.comDear Barek, perhaps I didn't form my external link properly, however, I do believe it to be a value resort on the subject matter. What better way to understand the meaning of "Ski Resort" then to see an aerial depictions of the best ski resorts in the world illustrated by the most famous Ski Map Artist in the world??? I believe you will agree that this is a value resource link. I will endeavor to make my entries less promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatman1 ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear Barek, you can't be serious about the WP:NOT#REPOSITORY thing seeing how ski resorts only has one external link, added another one hardly makes it a REPOSITORY. Regarding WP:ELNO, the only guideline that the external link [2] I posted possible treads on is the one about personal website, however, since James Niehues is considered an expert in his field, depicting ski resorts for the masses, it can be easily argued that his website is a value resource for the topic. Did you bother to examine the external link? Did you not see first hand the value of the content on that webpage to the subject matter "Ski Resorts"? If you are going to deny wikipedia users access to content you should at least endeavor to make sure that the content isn't a true resource. And if you visit the webpage and review the content there and come away from it thinking it's not a value resource directly on topic, then you should probably not be an editor of this topic. In my opinion that is. I ask you to please read the title WP:ELNO again and make note of the word "Normally". I image it's there because there are exemplary exceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatman1 ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
What gives you the right?To declare non-spam links as spam. If you are simply spiteful about being proven wrong simply be a man and admit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckman963 ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Monjeau lookoutHello Barek. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Monjeau lookout, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Ged UK 08:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Carnival UKMany thanks for your comments, it's nice to have your work complimented on Wikipedia occasionally. In response, I'm a little ambiguous on whether Carnival UK should have its own article. It is 'technically' a separate company, being the UK listed holding company of the Carnival Group, however it does all come under the banner of Carnival Corp/PLC, so I think making a new article for it would suggest it is disconnected in some way, when it has the same board of directors etc as the rest of the Carnival Group. Perhaps this should be put up for a consensus discussion somewhere, as it would also be useful to expand on the Costa Cruises division of the company too. Crazy-dancing ( talk) 14:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you!I truly appreciate your honesty and candid response. To receive such an informative response initially would have been extremely helpful. Although all your words don't speak truth to me and seem vague, I understand where your coming from and how you formed you decisions. Also it's funny because almost all of those edits are true even though you somehow know a source saying they are not. For example, Fairyland is across from the high school. Anyways, I am OK with it now that I have received a thoughtful response. Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciguyrules ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 April 2010 But can't I claim to be the victim? I said that Concord-Carlisle High School was across from Fairyland. This is in fact true and a staple of the high schoolers, as it is place many teachers and students go. Is that vandalism? Hi, you said that my edits were not factual. Here's a pretty solid source. Would this suffice in the future? This http://www.getupngoadventures.com/html/fairyland.html and this http://www.getupngoadventures.com/html/fairyland.html Those are both quality sources that prove the accuracy of my information. Thanks! C.I. Ciguyrules —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciguyrules ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 14 April 2010
Homeless articlesHi Barek. User:Elpacifico3 ( User talk:Elpacifico3) continues to ravage the article on Homelessness which you had rvv'd. But more was done after that. I rolled it to a stable version but it's hard to chase. I assume the edits he made are spurious. Perhaps you can have a look. Bests. --- Wikiklrsc ( talk) 02:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
User:COIBot/Pokethat did not work, but since I did this, the next time it will. :-) -- Dirk Beetstra T C 15:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 15:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Created a nomination for you: User:Barek/RFA; I didn't transclude the template, because you should be entirely capable of doing those steps. Let me know if you have questions, and contacting me via email wouldn't be a bad idea. tedder ( talk) 21:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for Input on PayPal PageHi Barek, Thanks for feedback. I've added this information as it's the lessons we've learned and gathered from various parts of PayPal's sites, plus a quote which we included. I wish someone else had written it so that I could have read it months ago...I would have saved a lot of time. A few questions 1) I understand all quotes need to be attributed, but how does one attribute a quote that was sent via email? Post it to a website, then reference THAT site? 2) Was that quote the only issue? Or am I not fully understanding the research material issue? I'd like to help flush out this section, but looking for some guidelines. Thanks DogStar5 ( talk) 17:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC) DogStar5, April 15, 2010
questionI've added one. Dloh cierekim 13:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I put in an infobox, but it doesn't display his being the archbishop, and I don't know how to get the army service (See Hugo Black for example) to display, too. Please take a look. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 13:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Stan
Smart idea!That was a great idea! 7 00:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Reduction in dramaI have a new idea. The idea is that ANI is full of drama, complainers, bad editors, etc. Instead of arguing, what if we set a very high standard for Wikipedia. If you fail to meet the standard, you are blocked. However, the blocks are short. It would be expected that many people would be blocked. If you are a busy body and argue, you get blocked for a week. If you edit really badly, also a week. If you accuse others of something and don't have a solid case, you are also blocked. If you plagiarize, even if innocently done (so you claim), you get blocked for a week. If you download a copyrighted picture, also a week block. Then all the crackpots who don't edit will get the message. On the other hand, indefinite blocks will be much reduced. You have to present a pretty good case to indefinitely block someone. If you fail to present a good case, the accuser gets a week block. If someone later runs for RFA, a week block is not the kiss of death as it is just a learning tool to prevent all this bad Wikipedia editing and drama. This proposal I have NOT thought through long and hard but rather than be scared to say something, I am describing it to you. Call it the parking ticket aspect of Wikipedia. Now, Wikipedia is all argument, drama, and if there are blocks, many of them are indefinite so there is no middle ground. A one week block also clears the mind. Every month, I pretend I am blocked and do not edit from the first of the month for a few days. Then when I come back, I am refreshed! Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 19:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations( X! · talk) · @102 · 01:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations! Don't let the spammers get on your nerves. Now get blacklisting. MER-C 03:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Quick, get the mop! People with mops are given greater weight. You now have the mop. Go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines in particular the top one, which is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RFC:_new_proposal_to_make_this_a_policy Voice an opinion. I don't care what the opinion is, yes or no. I would like one admin to make an opinion. One opinion is not canvassing. It is a call for an expert opinion. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 17:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Random person dropping by to say congrats to you on your adminship. :) -- Aspectacle ( talk) 05:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) How can you delete a full listing of where this Fraternity has it's active and Inactive chapters. Like any other fraternity or Sorority on Wikipedia, why shouldn't we have our chapters listed. I could understand remove the links to individual websites but not the entire listing. To me that is pure BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.203.234 ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 April 2010
the Fraternity listing does none of that. It lists the chapters of the National Fraternity. If you are going to remove our chapter listings, than you should be going into every Fraternity that has a listing of chapters and removing theirs as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by APD03 ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 27 April 2010
So basically, I can go to any other Fraternity listing on Wiki and delete for that reason. Just because, the way you interpret what someone has stated has to be your way. Sorry I disagree, You first state Wiki is not a Yellow pages, and I agree and read what you asked and none of that is listed. If you asked us to move the links to another section that could be done as well. But the fact that you are deleting the list from your interpretation is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by APD03 ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess I will have to accept what your decision was, I do not have to agree with it, and as for Tedder's comparison of a Fraternity to an International Super store like Wal-mart is a little of base. I would rather you compare apples to apples and not apples to bananas. If there is a project trying to clean up all the Fraternities and Sororities, why wouldn't you include their chapters, if a prospective pledge came on here to do research on the Organization, knowing where they have chapters is a big thing, And yes they could go to the official Website, but we use Wikipedia for short and straight to the point answers. APD03 ( talk) 17:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Spam-like editsI've come accross User:Sheilamichell who is using their account to add unsourced information regarding awards from the charity Death Penalty Focus to various celebrity articles (about 70 celebrity articles in just two days). It looks like spamming, but the editor links to the charity's article instead of the Death Penalty Focus website. To me this would appear to be both a WP:BLP and promotional issue, but I'm unsure if I'm just overeacting. Since you're a wikiproject spam member I thought I'd go straight to an expert. Cheers, -- Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 20:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI, if you come across these types of edits in the future: This might a misguided attempt to increase the PageRank of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Penalty_Focus, which unsurprisingly has a link to http://deathpenalty.org. If WP didn't use nofollow, that increased PR would flow on to their website. It's a cynical way of viewing things, but years in the anti-spam business does that to you. MER-C 09:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The Poly ShockerWhy would I not be able to edit the shovker page? It is not vandalism but a fact what i posted. For that reason it should stay, it is not offensive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahpoly ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 29 April 2010
what ?What the heck are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmghosthost ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 30 April 2010
Protection of white tigerI requested temporary semi-protection, you said you would semi-protect for a week, then protected it indefinetly. Just notifying you of this, in case it is a mistake. Bramble claw x 00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Requested move of ship articleI've commented at the RM. I'm still of the opinion that the move should take place, but it seems that NC-S needs to be rewritten. Mjroots2 ( talk) 05:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Machu PicchuThe Bot rejected my first post on Machu Picchu saying it did not like the Youtube link so I took it out. The edit then disappeared again so I added it again. I did not see anything about the other links being a problem until just now. I am happy to remove the links to the personal web site but I believe there should be information indicating that the model is available in Google Earth and Google Maps. The 3D model provides more practical information than a thousand written words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmolsen ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I got a reply from Tommy2010 on my talk page regarding Machu Picchu and also from you. I cannot reply to TOmmy because there is no Edit or reply link on his pages. How do I reply to him please? Is there any problem with me just updating the Machu Picchu page to say there is a 3D model of it available on Google Earth with no links added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmolsen ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you please respond to my questions on the Machu Picchu discussion. Pmolsen ( talk) 02:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Burlington, ColoradoBarek, Just wanted to thank you for your intervention and only administering a warning for me. You certainly seem to understand what a heartfelt subject this is for myself and others. Thank you again for your help in the matter. Let's hope that the MIT user(s) don't continue to press the issue in the manner they had chosen, after the protection expires on the 8th. Take care, BC1121 ( talk) 02:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC) help with AfD process?I'm wondering whether you might consider helping continue, or just looking into, an AfD process that I have begun. I do not have a wikipedia account, nor am I well versed in the technical processes involved in editor-level wikipedia revisions. I saw a recently-created page, Hope_May, that I thought did not meet the wikipedia notability guidelines. I've tried to start the deletion process of this page by placing an AfD tag in the article, but apparently (and understandably) only a user with an account can continue the process. Following instructions, I just notified the user who created the article that I had inserted an AfD tag, I saw your name on the user's talk page. Frankly, because I don't know anyone with wikipedia account, your name was all I could come up with: I figured I'd ask you if you happen to have a chance to glance at this article and see if you'd be willing to continue the AfD process, or to reverse what I've started it if I'm mistaken about wikipedia notability guidelines. I gave my justifications on the discussion page. Thanks for your time, and my apologies for bothering you with this somewhat random request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.75.174 ( talk) 01:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Why are you protecting Michel Shane, who continues to steal from people. Why don't you take a look at the numerous cases listed in michelshane.net before you protect this scam artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.52.241 ( talk) 22:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Tweaks please. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 13:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Stan
I have reverted your edit to this article. The competitors section was revised several times following a discussion. The competitors are included due to their discussion in external reference material mentioning both the article subject and the competitor. Please use the discussion page before removing a whole section that has been already debated. 80.46.47.216 ( 80.46.47.216 - 10:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
User:AbminHiyas Barek - Looks like the anon who has been spamming the Vaporizer article has got himself an account at Abmin ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He's done some reasonable changes to vaporizer, and then managed to put his ubie stuff back in referencing 'skunkmagazine.com' and the patent. I can't view skunkmagazine to have any idea if its reliable, since its blocked by my work. I suspect I know what the answer is, but figured I'd run it past you. Thanks for any help. Syrthiss ( talk) 12:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Barek, I tried adding Haven Hill should be separately listed under the Protected Areas of Michigan template box as a "National Natural Landmark", and I think all I did was screw it up. Please see if you can fix my error. Sorry to be a bother. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 18:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Stan
List of National Natural Landmarks in Michigan contains their identities, and also uses a redirect from Havel Hill to Highland Recretation Area. I didn't do that, so someone else did. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 08:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Stan
NotesSULIn process --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 22:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Tinnitus is your brainwaves, as measurable with an EEGCheers Barek!
Why an external link is deleted?I added the link, www.gptrac.org of Great Plains Telehealth Resource & Assistant Center on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telehealth and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telemedicine, hoping it would be useful for Wikipedia users who seek for more information about telehealth and telemedicine. However, it is deleted. The project is funded by the U.S. government, Grant number G22IT16263 from the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth: Health Resources Service Administration/DHHS. This organization is providing a service for free and they do not hire me to advertise them. It is confusing to me that a lot of external links Wikipedia allows as external links on these two pages are non-profit and not really relevant as much as this one. Additionally, this project is associated with the university ( http://gptrac.ahc.umn.edu/) just like some links appear on the articles. Would it be possible for you to suggest me on my talk page what should I do in order to succeed in adding this link without being deleted? Thanks in advance for your help. Nan KT~11.21PM (CST)~Monday, May 10, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nan KT ( talk • contribs) 66.177.1.203Hello Barek.
Spam-blacklist questionHi, I'd like to ask your advise please. Few months ago an editor (not me) was severely punished for including in an article references to so called "racist" site. The info that was included in that article was not racist at all, and is found on few other sites, but the site the editor used is considered "racist" by many editors although I myself have never looked at it in details. So the question is, if there is a way to blacklist that site, that nobody ever again used it as a reference by a pure accident? Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 17:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Add external siteHello Barek! I try to add site about solyanka, but you delete it. Could you tell me why? What i have to do, ti add site. Best regards, Alexander —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.92.161.139 ( talk) 21:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Kelleys IslandDiscussions between interested editors, often taking place on user talk pages, have agreed that it's a helpful link. The person behind this IP address (who's also behind several others as well) has been attempting for many months to remove it for specious reasons; among other things, s/he said that it should be removed because it violated a quoted passage of Wikitravel policy. At the same time, the IP is spamming a related article. Given the overall editing pattern, it's plain that the person behind the IP is trying to spam in reverse. Nyttend ( talk) 23:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Question re: codingblock these personal pages: without blocking the entire Google Knol site? Thanks in advance. -- Ckatz chat spy 03:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
usurp on pl wikiplease confirm your identity on en wiki if you want to usurp an account on pl wiki. sorry for the inconvienence and the laziness of our bureaucrats (including me). link to your? request. Maikking ( talk) 20:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Rental Business SoftwareHello, you deleted following topic in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rental_management_software
with reason. Can you explain? <ref> is not allowed, so it is possible to edit and delete them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.13.244.10 ( talk) 06:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Vball29Hi Barek. As my AIV report is not being acted on, can you please block the edit-warring and spamming SPA if you are still available? Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 04:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Why did you delete my entry on Healthy diet?Hi, Why do you state that my entry on Healthy diet concerning Anti-Inflammation Diet is linkspam? I understand that I was a bit aggressive with my entries in Diet and Dieting (but if a normal person types those two in wikipedia or google, what do you expect that they are searching for, most of the times?), but my entry for Healthy diet was perfectly valid. If you want I will put it into another section of Healthy diet stating that WHO, AHA, etc, have not recognized it yet. If you think that I am affiliated with Dr. Sears and his company, you are dead wrong. I am user of his dieting guidelines, and the only reason why I wrote of his two products in my article page is because they are quite simply the best in the marketplace and for very specific reasons. Once the marketplace will be producing products equivalent to these two, then I will be quite happy to endorse all of them impartially. I repeat that I am not affiliated with Dr. Sears, and the reason why I have put more than a day's worth in typing that stuff is because I believe that I can help people by being as exact as possible (if I write of two products that I find ideal because of very specific reasons, then what is the problem? It helps people understand what they should expect, and when the marketplace responds by producing products equivalent to these two along with the quality standard that Dr. Sears makes his products go through, then I will write that any of these products is ideal). Thanks, Nfbetakappa ( talk) 19:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfbetakappa ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
please stop vandalizing the bhangra bands pagethe information is being sourced from cassette covers and bands themselves dont delete things you have no idea about —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxiousnews ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Bhangra is not about notability or popularity, because it is not pop music. I have the source tapes with the listed band members, others contributions have come from band pages etc. What you are doing is vandalizing because most of these bands can easily be googled and you can find info on their releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.100.147 ( talk) 14:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
talkpage of User_talk:The_Thing_That_Should_Not_BeHi it seems the IP is not listening and has left another personal attack on User_talk:The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Barek, I see you just reverted some spam on some articles I watch. Thanks for doing that. It's demoralizing to me (a newbie Wikipedian) that many Wikipedia articles on IQ testing or related topics contain more spam that sourced article content. I'll try to add content gradually, as I check sources, and we can both clean away the spam. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 19:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Barek, would you please take a look and give me your advice. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 16:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Stan
Keyword Research PageI disagree with your removal of the external link that I added to the Keyword research page. According to the Wikipedia guidelines for external links: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content" The link I provided has a great deal of relevant details demonstrating examples of the usage of keyword research in creating web content and is a perfect complement to the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.22.26 ( talk) 01:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but having an affiliate link on the sidebar doesn't not make the site a "front-end for the commercial site seoelite.com". Is the Google search engine a front end for every product that advertises in the side of the search results? I added that link over a year ago to the Keyword research page and you are first person, of the many who have edited that page to dispute it. I don't think that qualifies as anything more than a personal issue or bad judgment on your part. Replacing the link is not a matter of a war but simply reinstating a valuable resource that had achieved condenses from many other reviewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.22.26 ( talk) 02:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Point Roberts PageHi Barek: I can already tell from the tone of your response to others' concerns that you will outlast me and that you are likely to win this dispute in the end. I'm not sure why people of your ilk cannot find something constructive to do, instead of devoting their time to destruction and the desire to win an argument. I personally added the majority of the external links you have now removed from the "Point Roberts" article, as a result of extensive research (over a five year period) on the topic. These links weren't added maliciously or by vendors trying to hawk their wares. They weren't harming anyone. They were put their to help to simplify life and foster the concept of community in the disparate collection of families and individuals who live on or visit this small peninsula. I feel that you used a very broad brush to eradicate these links. Could it be that a laser-like focus on each individual link might have been more appropriate? Or is it possible that you simply get off on starting arguments as a form of entertainment? Why would you remove links to additional information on local Whatcom County Parks, or the Cascadia trail? Do these links really violate your oft cited wiki guidelines? ( Gnatdroid ( talk) 18:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC))
Specific Carbohydrate Diet pageI have Sandra Ramacher's permission to copy the pictures from her cookbook. How do I proceed? Glida7 ( talk) 02:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
WTFI was just writing to let you know that I did not appreciate you taking down another users wikipedia edit to the city of las cruces. Clearly you aren't from las cruces because if you were you'd be appreciative of a cult icon stopping into town and then tweeting about it to his 1.5 million followers about us. It's certainly more significant than the songs that nobody has heard of. OUR culture is not YOUR culture so you have NO business dictating what is significant about it. Look at the pride we display at our new term: http://twitter.com/#search?q=las%20pusas I'm sure twitter is something you turn your nose at but it is a measure of cultural activity, and this is the topic at hand . . . ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.58.106 ( talk) 23:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
WaileaJust wondering why you removed the information I added to Wailea about the Shops at Wailea mall. Perhaps you thought I was adding information that you considered to be advertisement for certain vendors, however that isn't the case. I visited Maui recently and heard about a mall in Wailea, but when I tried to find information about it online there wasn't much. I thought that it would be helpful for anyone else searching for information about Wailea to know about the mall there. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for, to provide useful information to other people? Please do not delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GixxerSteve ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Specific Carbohydrate DietAll the owners of these photographs gave me the right to put the pictures on Wikipedia. I am sorry that I was not familiar with the procedures. However, I did not put Wikipedia in any risk of copyright litigation since the owners were happy to get their pictures on this website. Is it OK if I ask the owners of the photographs to submit the pictures themselves? Would that make the procedure more simple? Glida7 ( talk) 23:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your help. Thank you very much. I have some more writing to add to the Specific Carbohydrate Diet page. I want to check it in advance with the editors of that page. Are you in charge to that page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glida7 ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism - Warning #1Barek, a cited collegiate article qualifies as a reliable source. This contradicts your revisions to a previous non-cited piece of information and constitutes vandalism. Please consider this your first warning and cite your source should you wish to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikimanzi ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank youThank you for fixing the link on Don Murphy now please fix the other one. That Active Banana is actually quite lazy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BassandAle ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
If you read WP:3RR, you will see that reversions of edits by banned users do not count as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule. – Pee Jay 18:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
bobbinis-kitchen.comDear Barek, in regard to your spam declaration for bobbinis-kitchen.com/quarkkeulchen: please would you be so kind to explain to me the difference between the empiric example (see url above) and http://www.recipe-recipes-message-board.com/forum/view_topic.php?forum_id=98&id=1276 that is still denoted as a sample on the article quarkkeulchen and not declared as spam?? I do not understand where the linking to a webpage of noncommercial extent like bobinis-kitchen.com/quarkkeulchen breaks the rules of linking. Especially, when the content of this webpage is definetly scientifical and not just entertainment or business. As far as wikipedia declared, there are anyway no exceptional advantages that any webpage could get by beeing linked to from a wikipedia article. I would appreciate if we could undo the spam declaration for bobbinis-kitchen.com. Regards Bonzothedog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzothedog ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Barek, I think, I understand your point of view in parts. I hope you can understand mine and Anna's (see above), too. The wikipedia-rules for linking that you quote seem to be inconsistent. When one link is legal and the other link to the same type of inforessource is illegal. On the other hand is the conclusion inconsistent that a user like me that has linked round about 5 times to the same site but different pages is guilty of linkspaming. To return to the path of the righteos man I would like to initiate a discussion on some of the articles I tried to cultivate a little bit. As you see linking isn't my only usage of wikipedia. My next approach will be to ask you (I will not change the article without your permission): Don't you think we could add the url: http://www.bobbinis-kitchen.com/stuffed-cabbage/ to the external links on the article cabbage roll? Please compare the existing links to national variations of that recipe with the one I suggested. No difference. A german recipe is missing and of great importance to complete the whole article. My improvement to the article was to denote the german name "Kohlroulade" and to link to a good german example. How can we understand the world without examples? Thank you for your feedback. Bonzothedog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzothedog ( talk • contribs) 02:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
(By the way, as tone and manner are very important, but often difficult to communicate with keystrokes, my demeanour is intended to be: polite, respectful, honest, but quite to the point). Best wishes Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 13:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh well, can't say I didn't try! – Pee Jay 00:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Creating backlogsHey Barek, you might want to have a look in Category:Local COIBot Reports. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I added a post to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 19:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Delete the "ken Harycki" page and I will stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.155.35.225 ( talk) 04:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you lookup Spencer Tunick Barek on Wikipedia,you'll find the pic with Banksy and James DeWeaver are on Tunick's wiki page when Tunick first went to Australia !In mid-2000,on a trip to Sydney and Melbourne, Australia, he met up with the Gen-X pastellist, visual activist, and recluse James DeWeaver in Byron Bay where he stencilled a parachuting rat with a clothes peg on its nose above a toilet at the Arts Factory Lodge. In 2008, the owners of the backpackers found out its value and relocated it. This stencil can no longer be located. Banksy posed nude for Spencer Tunick along with DeWeaver and forty others in this same time period, the resulting photo can be seen on DeWeaver's site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.88.206 ( talk) 04:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You have arbitrarily deleted the spreadsheets that I have made available through external links on various pages (United States Treasury security, Corporate Bonds, Interest Rate Swap, Asset Swap, Z Spread). I teach training courses at all of the major investment banks on these subjects, the spreadsheets are very popular and are offered for free. What exactly is the problem here? Yes they are offered without citations; they are practical and real rather than purely academic and theoretical, is that the problem? This kind of action will gradually diminish the value of Wikipedia articles. Can I strongly but politely suggest that you look at the content offered and reflect carefully before (thoughtlessly it would seem) deleting them? Regards, Peter Leahy (By the way I do seem to have used 2 different logins 'peterjleahy' and 'pjleahy' - nothing sinister here, just a little disorganised!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjleahy ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I have to say that your comments still convey no suggestion that you have looked at the content offered. I should also say that the the spreadsheets have been downloaded by plenty of users - about 40 even during the brief time you left them up, no other such information is available on Wikipedia.The spreadsheets are detailed and exact calculations that can not be incorporated into the Wikipedia text. They are offered absolutely free of any charge, comittment or registration. I feel that your approach is over zealous and reveals a lack of concern for good content, just an obsession with arbitrarily imposed rules and ‘because you can’. The spreadsheets provide practical and real information on the products concerned. It is, I feel, worth pointing out that most of the useful content of, for example, ‘Corporate Bonds’ was provided by me after our last discussion, this has not been changed since in spite of all the rather insulting comments made about my lack of convincing expertise, gleaned exactly how I wouldn’t know! I have a depressing sense of foreboding that you are already in the process of selecting a similarly minded friend amongst the Wiki-police who will fully support you, and going by my last experience, in rather personal and insulting terms. You refer to the content as ‘spam’. This is casually insulting and again suggests that you have not troubled yourself to explore the content offered. You plainly feel that exercising your authority is more important than relevant and accurate content. The content is the product of hard work and expertise and is offered for free on 5 pages to which it is directly relevant and adds to the content of those pages. I challenge you to ask any bond / fixed-income expert whether the spreadsheets are a useful addition to the pages concerned. Please take up this challenge but not by using one of your cosy pals that automatically agree with you. Perhaps it would be a better idea to embrace and encourage people like me with directly relevant industry experience rather than to work at driving us away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjleahy ( talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Jarmentmay26Would you mind extending the block of Jarmentmay26 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to indef? Materialscientist ( talk) 04:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Contrarian Investing LinksI noticed that you removed the link to my weblog, Guzzo the Contrarian. I have been running my non-partisan contrarian weblog since 1996 and it fits within the Contrarian Investing guidelines. I am a true contrarian individual investor. Before you try to tell me that it is a spam link, could you please explain to me why my link is more spammish than the link to Warren Buffett's link, who charges investors for his services? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PharmAZy ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Wodenheln's edit of my talk pageThanks for the revert, just so you're aware of what he was trying to edit back in to my page: It was a flaming rant. -- Marty Goldberg ( talk) 05:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC) And now he's doing edits like [10] -- Marty Goldberg ( talk) 05:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
UBXHi, I noticed you make userboxes and wanted some feedback on mine and what to do with it now (I already listed it in the new userboxes page) Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 21:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Please be calmIn the -Begging You- article nobody is spamming and we have reached a consensus that u arbitrarily are trying to broke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim FOR sure ( talk • contribs) 03:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Misconduct and bias against external competing wiki pagesYour recent attempt to characterize a link to a competing wiki provider as "linkspam" is an obvious abuse of your position as an administrator. This destructive conduct does an overall disservice to Wikipedia, even when considering your removal of true linkspam. Wikipedia may have an agenda to censor their competitors, but please, at least be honest about the rationale of a removal. Masking such an effort by referencing linkspam rules is intellectually dishonest and downgrades both the quality and utility of Wikipedia. If you disagree, please read the linkspam rules yourself, and try to find a specific clause that corresponds. An external link to a neutral comparison wiki obviously complies with linkspam and your claim here stating "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion" makes it evident that you're putting quite a spin on this. To claim that a comparison wiki maintained by a community of volunteers is a "promotion" is an obvious mischaracterization. Your actions are shown to be driven by emotion. This is clear because after you destroyed a whole article comparison page using the rationale that a comparison page violates both wp:directory and wp:linkfarm, you destroyed it again after the community restored it in a way that complies with your personal interpretation of the rules (that is, with links and names removed). Your continual removals of compliant and useful information suitable to researchers demonstrates a compelling need to "win" what you're seeing as a "battle" against the community. This is evident from your secondary rationale from the re-removal, where you state that the content is "not notable" (which you later contradict). Please try to take a more cooperative approach. If you have another administrator do the secondary removals, it will add credibility to the merit of removal. -- Jgombos ( talk) 06:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Inconsistent removal and contradictory actionsYour initial stance against a comparison page on the grounds of wp:directory and wp:linkfarm expressed in Talk:Online_post_office is fair enough, in principle. You made it clear that comparison pages (like Comparison_of_webmail_providers) is not at Wikipedia standards when there are links to outside companies, and in the end the community accepted this. Then later when you discovered similar content outside of Wikipedia, you did a 180 degree reversal of your stance, proposing to violate the very rules you were enforcing to begin with. Please try to be more consistent. -- Jgombos ( talk) 06:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Talk:LibThanks for the heads-up. (I was pretty sure the bright-line 3RR wasn't crossed though. I had quite a number of edits that were responses to legitimate threads, but maybe you counted all of my edits in there yesterday.....?) In any case, yes, the reversions were getting pretty excessive. BigK HeX ( talk) 11:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear sirI am trying to repair an article that carries a NPOV warning. It is the POV-warriors who are warring, not I. Keep in mind that the section as existing violates copyright law, attribution directives as per WP:MOS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Is It Raining Underground? ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Another opinionHey Barek. As a ships guy with a great deal of experience in spam issues, I wonder if you could take a look at this conversation. It may well be a over-optimistic, but I sense a possibility for rehabilitation may exist. Thanks. Haus Talk 17:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
User:Hairhappy2You left a block notice on the page of Hairhappy2 ( talk · contribs) but you didn't actually block them. Please do so as they have just created a blatant Park51-related attack page. elektrik SHOOS 05:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC) RE: User:Kralizec!Thanks! I really appreciate it! — Kralizec! ( talk) 21:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Regarding Alpha delta psi articleHey, I was the one that tagged it for speedy deletion. I have been in discussion with people who have been working on the article at my talk page, and was just about to change the tag to PROD to give them a chance to bring it "up to snuff". Per WP:BITE, could we perhaps restore the article, or maybe userfy it to the article creator, to give it some time and to give the newbs a chance to learn a bit about Wikipedia? Thanks! -- Jayron 32 04:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
My fanclub is back (ie, vandal at work)The IP-hopping vandal with a grudge against me, who you put in a lot of work blocking a night or two ago, is back and busy vandalizing pages I've recently done cleanup work on and such (examples [11], [12], [13]) as well as his usual Howard Stern-related obsessions [14], [15]. Any way to get some rangeblocks in place, or will we have to play whack-a-mole again? Thanks very much. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Editing pagesI have added some material to some pages and then received a message from you. This is the first time I've edited anything on Wikipedia, and I'm not sure what I've done that might be incorrect. Grateful if you could let me know. Thanks and best wishes, Hugh Hunter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh H Hunter ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Barek, Many thanks for taking the time to reply to my question; I appreciate that you must be busy. I must say, however, that I'm still left confused about your view on this: it seems to me arbitrary at best, and almost capricious. In what sense was my addition 'solely to promote a book.' It is true that I wish for the book to be known about, but in as much as it is a book set in - and largely about my official work in - Orlando I cannot see why it is inappropriate to mention it in the section "In popular culture'. There are other books mentioned on that page and in that section, so why aren't they 'solely promoting a book'? Additionally, there are references to sports franchises, cars, bands and all sorts of other things that must surely, on the same criteria you apply, be 'solely to promote' a product. Further, there are actually Wikipedia pages completely and only about books. How are they not promoting themselves? In my entries I specifically did not say that the book was good, nor did I recommend it in any way. I did provide a link to the publisher, but only because when I read the Wikipedia guidelines it encourages you to substantiate an entry with references. The best way to substantiate that my book exists, and that I'm not just making it up, or vandalizing the site, is to provide a link to the publisher. If I've misunderstood that, then the simple solution is to remove the reference to the publisher. Consequently, I cannot understand how I was 'promoting' the book. The only other aspect of this that seems to potentially apply to me is the section on autobiography and conflict of interest. I read these guidelines carefully. Wikipedia does not prohibit such entries, it only encourages you to think carefully before writing an entry. It is true that I wrote the book I mentioned in my edits, but I cannot make that clear to the public as Wikipedia prohibits this (for, it seems to me, good reasons). Nevertheless, if I'm fair and objective, why should it matter? Are you seriously suggesting that there aren't many books (or for that matter, other things/products) that appear legitimately on Wikipedia that weren't written by the author/manufacturer or somesuch? Most of them probably take the precaution of writing under an alias or getting a friend or colleague to do it, but I chose to be more direct in what I did. After your first messages last night I re-added my book to the Orlando page, but without the link to the publisher. It was removed again by someone else (I shall copy this message to that person also). I am, as you probably can tell, somewhat frustrated at this as it seems so unfair. I added edits to other pages last night (all of which you deleted and I've not re-visited). In the case of Krishna Maharaj and Chantal McCorkle - both convicted felons - their Wikipedia pages must surely have been set up and run by them (or close friends and supporters) for the purposes of presenting their cases. I am totally unable to understand why my adding the existence of my book, which discusses their cases, is advertising or any less promotional than the very existence of their pages. In the case of Slick Rick - also a convicted felon, whose case is discussed in my book - I expect also that his page is, if not created and sustained by him, at least managed by those close to him. I believe in all these cases that if a scholar or someone who is even just casually interested in these people were to use Wikipedia to research them, they should know about a book that deals with their cases. I would be grateful if you could, when you find the time, address these points that I raise. Very best wishes, Hugh Hunter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh H Hunter ( talk • contribs) 11:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Personal rapid transitBarek, you should read the discussion page of PRT article. 91.78.245.121 ( talk) 17:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Planetimplant.comBarek, I think you misunderstand. Planetimplant.com is am informational site and requires no membership fee and does not sell anything. It is both for the public to increase understanding of dental implants and for dentists, manufacturers and laboratories to join together to better understand and advance the field.(1009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oraldr ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of Amber Dawn Lee talk pagethis is seriously like chasing my own tail -- you only deleted this because the page it's associated with is missing -- AGAIN ignoring updates on the talk page. PER WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES I've been trying to update, resurrect deleted pages I thought were in error, and I have about 5 different admins deleting stuff willy nilly. PLEASE CAN SOMEONE HELP ME HERE?!? -- Kevjkelly ( talk) 03:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
That would be much appreciated, thank you! could you possibly please restore Renegade Theatre Experiment to my userspace as well -- I was updating it to more strictly comply with the Wikipedia guidelines and removed potentially copywritten materials. Thanks a bunch! -- Kevjkelly ( talk) 04:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Network MarketingBarek, while I accept that there were errors in my html (which is obviously a slim excuse), the fact remains that you have repeatedly deleted any attempt to cast a positive view on network marketing. Your excuse that my two measly sentences were redundant is plainly untrue. There is nothing in the article whatsoever that would evidence that claim. Either delete the entire article, which is manifestly negative from end to end, or allow the fair inclusion of positive material, of which there is a great deal extant in the world. In my view, your approach to so-called editing amounts to a flagrant attempt to control the message. Vejeestu ( talk) 03:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)vejeestu|talk]] Vejeestu ( talk) 03:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't find a talk page, but the fact remains that "redundant" is a judgment and terming useful references "advertising" is also a judgment justifying unwarranted interference in ANY and EVERY attempt to balance this distinctly negative page. You are masking personal prejudice under a thin veneer of being a wikicop fighting "redundancy" and "advertising". Vejeestu ( talk) 14:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Your unexplained revert.Please justify or undo: [16] -- Elvey ( talk) 18:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
ThanksThanks as always for your quick work on reverting talk page vandalism. 7 03:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC) LinksummaryAs a frequent contributor to wp:wpspam I thought you might find
this script useful to add to your monobook. The simple explanation of its use is that if you type "L:SomeDomainName.com" into the regular Wikipedia search box it will take you to a linksearch results page. I created this because when reverting spam I often find myself wanting to run a linksummary link but end up having to create a new section on my talk page or the spammers where I preview a linksummary link.
PepsiThanks for undoing my edit on Pepsi I was not to sure if I got it right well I guess that will come in time. btw is it proper to mark messages like this "minor edits" TucsonDavid ( talk) 17:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Jolt (Transformers)I was hoping to talk about your deletion of Jolt (Transformers). It was deleted for lacking notability and third party sources. I didn't recreate the page, I wrote a fresh page, much smaller, no non-free images, complete with MANY sources. It deserves to stand on it's own merits, not the deletion decision of the old, bulky, page with no sources. Let me know what you think. Mathewignash ( talk) 10:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Would you please take a look at my last edit and see if you can fix the formatting? Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 03:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Stan
WoWpediaWowpedia is now at AfD. I left a comment there, you may want to as well. Thanks for leaving me the note after I declined the speedy. Protonk ( talk) 18:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hellohello sir I found that no such unlocking information on wiki so I submit this I know ref is nofollow so please let me know the mistake I am doing. I feel that this information including website which has information about unlocking can be here. Please let me know how can I improve my mistakes. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unlockblackberry ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
iPhone 4I am not sure how to cite my claim. But on apple.com there is an option after selecting "Buy iPhone" that says "Live chat" which connects you with an official Apple representative. I have asked them about the release date of the White iPhone, and they have stated by the end of 2010. Go see for yourself. Besides, nothing should be considered official unless there is a press release from Apple on the Apple website. P.S. My real username is: JJVrocks . I just did not feel like loggin in. 72.66.118.175 ( talk) 04:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
decorationpoint.com unfairly blacklistedHello Barek, I feel I have unfairly been taken spammed by my competition simplysteonbach.com on wikipedia. We have had some bad blood through competition and I must admit he is much more tech savvy than myself. I do not recognize the IP addresses you have filed as spam clearly. Today I tried to make a comment on the file cuckoo clocks and was unable to because of this block. I ask that my block be taken away on these grounds. Thanks you - Alan support@decorationpoint.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanb23DP ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't delete SilverboltHey, hey, hey, hey! Silverbolt was the best articles, and what kind of article is that?! 75.142.152.104 ( talk) 05:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Microsoft Ants ProblemDear Barek. I don't like the fact that you keep deleting my updates to Microsoft Ants. You said you deleted it so not to promote Ants. However, the information on the page is out of date. The final sentence says that "As of January 31, 2006, Microsoft's Zone retired Ants because of the lack of players." However, this is not the whole truth as ants is not retired, and can still be played on Voobly. It is important to let people know that ants is not retired and can still be played online, so please put back this fact. This was not an advertisement, just an update that ants is not dead! I tried to reference this truth (not advertisement) but the webside is blacklisted. You can see for yourself that this is a fact and that I am just trying to let people know updated information about ants. games/view/21 --- I still cant type voobly dot com, but if you put that in with that extention, you will see that Microsoft ants is still very much online. This needs to be added online, or people who read this will assume that ants is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 ( talk) 04:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC) --- Nov. 14 2010 10:31 p.m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 ( talk) 04:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, it still should be stated that ants is not offline and can still be played, even if you don't list the website where to find it. Not doing so is giving the false impression that Ants is dead. And that is just not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 ( talk) 04:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Voobly is a reliable source, as I have been there and have played ants. But I can't use it because it is blacklisted. If it wasn't I would have put the source. It's not that I was advertising the website, but anyone who comes to this wiki page wants to know if ants is still around. The answer is yes. But this page makes it seem as though it isn't. This will give people the wrong impression. So this information needs to be updated and let people know that they can still play it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 ( talk) 04:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
-- If the website I mentioned were allowed, you could see that Ants is playable there!!! It shouldn't need to be "sourced" if the actual source of where it is shows that it is still playabale. That would be like posting that you can play MSN checkers from the MSN gaming zone, but unable to post that, unless you find an article were someone else that says the same thing instead of just showing where you can play it.. It makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 ( talk) 05:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC) It talks about the Microsoft Gaming Zone and MSN games, but that isn't considered advertisement. Neither should Voobly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 ( talk) 04:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Swami KrishnanandaTell that to user Drmies. That person is the one who is not acting in good faith. 67.49.74.73 ( talk) 05:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Prank CallAs to notability of Blackout / Michael Biggins - that has already been established argued, and blackout / michael biggins articles were merged years ago. As to credibility of first person to host a streaming prank call site, that has also been established, at least firmer than any other site can possibly prove. Wayback machine shows the site up with a realaudio 1.0 prank in 1995... is that not source enough? Can you show me ONE of these other sites with proof of a prank call "STREAMING" on the internet prior to Blackout.com? No. None exist. Not claiming the guy invented prank calls but it was the first streaming prank call site on the internet, and that is notable and useful information to the evolution of prank calls, and this has been established from multiple sources and can be seen in references and articles on Michael Biggins page. Not trying to battle you but this keeps getting vandalized and there are TONS of uncredible listings and useless info in this article that should be removed, why don't you work on that instead of removing credible noteworthy contributions to the evolution of prank calling? 74.72.154.158 ( talk) 17:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Very well, I will look at your reply there later, but please don;'t just 'revert' edits with established notability. I tried to include all sourced and proven material in a non promotional tone. I also tried to clean up and move things into better organization as this article has always been a mess of prank callers fighting for there names to be included. I did not remove anyone even though there are several things there that have NO established notability that should be removed. You may be correct on the formatting, and if so, please feel free to fix that, but Biggins / Blackout is established and should be included. It was included many ties and vandalized by KDK - pranknet, and several other prankster sites that have no notibility whatsoever other than there own words. Blackout and his site are noted in 3 printed outside sources (New Times, Harley Hahns Internet Yellow Pages, and .NET magazine (1998 issue 13) as well as many online sources. 74.72.154.158 ( talk) 18:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Vaporiser articleHello Barek. I have tried editing this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporiser. As a new contributor I'm not very familiar with the process, however I gather that my edits have been deleted by you. As my contribution is technically correct and ethically acceptable I would like to know why it has been deleted and how should I go about putting in contributions. Best regards Steeve Taylor promotion@inhalater.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.65.163 ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 November 2010
Thanks for your prompt feedback. I understand the importance of keeping wikipedia free of commercial clutter. It is a fact that we enjoy every time we use it. However the modifications I proposed are technically correct and are of value to people who are interested in the subjet. Yes, I am responsable of commercial promotion of a vaporiser and this places me in a position to be distrussed. Thus said, I beleive, these proposed modifications more appropriate. In radiation heating, the substance is subjected to radiant energy. The substance absorbs the energy radiated into it and its temperature rises. This energy can be provided by a superheated thermal mass placed around it, or from visible light source like the sun. Radiation vaporizers are rare, but capable of duplicating the performance of convection vaporizers. A pipe and a magnifying glass on a bright, sunny day can, with care and practice, act as an adequate radiation vaporizer using light. Our product is the only vaporiser on the market using radiation heating of a thermal mass. From this perspective, would it be appropriate to have an illustration of the patent or of the apparatus? Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.65.163 ( talk) 00:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thanks!Not edit warringBarek, I am not edit warring, nor am I referring to an old consensus. The recent consensus changed the introduction, and Peregrine981 and I are working on a discussion regarding the subject. However, the original wording by the new consensus listed 1981 as the "usual" end date without definite time frames. This is backed up by sources. Educatedlady decided on her own to change the phrase to read 1982. Most sources do not cite 1982 as the end date for Generation X. Very few do. I will request a revert to the edit as it does not violate the recent consensus. CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 22:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Drop mop, insert cork.User talk:77.102.254.186 Half Shadow 22:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Post removedI would like to contribute to this article and would like to know what I need to do to get my contribution approved. I am new to Wikipedia, though am a published author and respected authority on the subject of Lease Options in the UK. I can confirm that the content posted was not an infringement on copyright. I note the comment about removing the link which leads to a web site, the content of which is my personal property and which contains useful information about lease options, however, if this is not allowed, I apologise for the error. Many thanks for your consideration in this matter. Mark Jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkJacksonUK ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Howdy, could you help clear his name. He's had a 'suspected of being a sock' Template on his talkpage, since November 10th. Yet, his suspector hasn't 'yet' filed a SPI. GoodDay ( talk) 05:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
quick question, no blocking neededJust wondering if the one month block was really necessary on my IP account? Sandstein didn't even give me a chance to reply, which makes me think that he was trying to get me out of the way from this thing and how I said that I had a vested interest in getting my account unblocked. Is that really how blockings are supposed to work? Spartan123455 ( talk) 23:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Just wondering. Spartan123455 ( talk) 00:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC) How does one get Eastside Sun newspaper deletion undone?Hi. A bunch of self-appointed censors winnowed, then deleted, the article on a newspaper in Washington State called The Eastside Sun. How do we determine the identities of the people behind the screen names? This was a clearly orchestrated effort and it needs to be exposed in print. We've spoken with Rolling Stone and they want us to get the lowdown. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.26.80 ( talk) 22:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
RevdelAnything I should know about in that edit to my talk page you revdel'd? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
NotabilityHi -- I'm new to Wikipedia. Having said that, I'm puzzled by the inconsistency in interpretation and enforcement of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. For example, I've posted an entry about an individual who's having a substantial impact on literary criticism/education at the middle and secondary school level, with major national press citations of a decidedly non-trivial nature, yet you've flagged it for failing to meet Wikipedia's notability standard. In the meantime, I've come across a substantial number of Wikipedia entries for individuals whose impact is not nearly so significant, with supporting source material not nearly so substantial ... yet unburdened by citations suggesting the failure of said notability standard. Writing as one who comes from a fairly deep, albeit "traditional," editorial background, I must say that Wikipedia's "notability" standard, while sound in formulation, appears to be quite capricious in application. Please -- if you think something falls short of "notability," feel free to say how it falls short, feel free to offer suggested corrections/additions/modifications. That's the spirit of Wiki! But don't fall for the short cut. When you attack an article -- and, as did one "editor" this evening, its subject -- with a generic stamp of illegitimacy, you stifle speech, impede ideation, promote mediocrity. The internet's anonymity makes it easier than ever to raise unsubstantiated doubts about others -- and their work. I'm hoping your apparent devotion to Wikipedia means you hold yourself to a much higher standard. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomanywordstoolittletime ( talk • contribs) 04:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi -- I may be new to Wikipedia, but I am not new to Wiki. Nor am I new to the English language, nor to the culture in which Wikipedia exists. Neither, I suspect, are you. That's why I'm sorry you've chosen to respond to my comment with an attempt to delegitimize, first, via the "soapbox" characterization, then with sarcasm (echoing my use of the word "please"). This underscores my aside from said "soapbox" -- about the insidiousness of the internet's anonymity, which allows otherwise-thoughtful people to employ rhetorical feints they'd otherwise avoid. Putting that aside, however, here's my point: The game show "Let's Make a Deal" may be the biggest thing Bob Barker has ever done, but the two are not synonymous, and an article about one is not a substitute for an article about the other. Moreover, my attempt to fill a gap in Wikipedia's content base was intended to be initiative, rather than comprehensive. So there is no prima facie reason not to permit the article(s) in question to take shape over time. Based on what I've seen thus far, however, I conclude that further discussion about the "notability" of the subject will devolve into an unresolvable tug-of-war, one likely to become personal in nature and, frankly, unfair to the subject herself -- who, to the best of my knowledge, is entirely unaware of all of this. So I ask that you either permit the article to stand, untagged, or simply delete it altogether. At this point, I really don't care what you decide to do: All I ask is that you make a choice. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomanywordstoolittletime ( talk • contribs) 10:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
As Reagan once said to Carter, “There you go again.” Really, I don't care whether you choose to accuse me of “soapboxing” … or of crimes against humanity. What is lost on me is the relevancy of such characterizations with the subject at hand. (But, whatever … ) More arresting is your take of the Wikipedia editorial “process,” which ignores the circumstances, as I experienced them, in my first (and last) attempt at authoring a Wikipedia article. Specifically, you write, “The community discussion may have been to either merge or to retain independent articles - but rather than permit that discussion to take place, you chose to blank out the article entirely.” In fact, here's what happened: An “editor” or “moderator” simply deleted the article I submitted about the individual in question, and redirected the link to the 60second Recap article. No notice, no deliberation. How on earth does such an act encourage a “community discussion”? You go on to say, “I see you also chose to blank out the 60second Recap article which had no questions on the independent notability of that article.” Technically this is true, but it ignores the fact that the 60second Recap article had been emblazoned with a notability tag about the individual who was the subject of the related article. Bottom line: I deleted both articles because I take this kind of work seriously, but don't have time for this kind of silliness. And insofar as your take on the subject itself is concerned … well, I just don't have a dog in this fight. So why fight? Wikipedia's a treasure, and I'll be happy to tweak grammatical/logic/factual errors on the site as I find them; that kind of messing-about amounts to a mental vacation, at least for me. Like playing Sudoku. But when it comes to taking the time to contribute actual content, I'll leave all that to your team of precocious middle schoolers. Thanks. Toomanywordstoolittletime ( talk) 22:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
quick question about WP:NPAThanks for the WP:NPA citation, as I think civility is important in all walks of life. I have a question I hope you, as a moderator, can answer. It will help me understand the application of WP:NPA in the Wikipedia community. In your last post, you write: "My comments on your soapboxing were a direct reply to your comments on the subject." As you were the one who accused me of being on a soapbox in the first place (cf., your very initial response to my first query), I take it you mean that your accusation was an appropriate response to my query. Fair enough. I found your characterization offensive and felt it injected an ad hominem element to the discussion. But you're the moderator. Anyway, my question ... Your "soapbox" accusation was aimed at an individual -- me. My comment about "precocious middle schoolers" was aimed at no one individual, but at an entire class of individuals. My reading of WP:NPA is that it prohibits personal attacks, although it remains silent on the issue of pissy asides that are not aimed at any specific individual. One could certainly, and reasonably, contend that such characterizations nevertheless violate the the spirit of WP:NFA. But this still begs the question: How is it that your "soapbox" accusation aimed at a specific individual does not violate WP:NPA, while my "precocious middle schoolers" comment aimed at no one individual does violate WP:NPA? I look forward to your response. P.S. By the way, I think you're right: I did act precipitously when I removed my 60second Recap article. So, point taken. I've reposted the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomanywordstoolittletime ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you're 100% right, of course. I just wanted to shut it down in the most unambiguous manner, asserting a kind of moral, rather than legal, right (if, indeed, such a right exists). In any event, it is challenging to be caught in a situation where an anonymous individual, one who appears to have credentials as some senior Wikipedia moderator, starts calling you, in essence, a liar ... and in the most aggressive and obnoxious manner. It's even more challenging when you ask this person just what it is you're doing wrong, and he merely responds with series of Wikipedia policy citations that, insofar as you can tell, have no bearing on anything you've done. Anyway, thanks for all you're doing (seriously). Alas, I've found my brief Wikipedia experience to be so extraordinarily unpleasant that I don't think I can ever look at this website again, much less contribute to it in any way. Once again, that cloak of anonymity seems to empower to people to act so unfortunately. Oh, well. Over and out. Toomanywordstoolittletime ( talk) 16:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Barek -- The response I posted on my page to your comment: Yes, you are 100% correct, and as I commented on your talk page, I was seeking to assert moral, rather than legal, authority (if such a thing even exists.) It is unpleasant to be accused, repeatedly, by a senior Wikipedia moderator, of being a spammer -- and then, in essence, of being a liar -- without any apparent cause or explanation. Under such circumstances, there is nothing to do but to leave. And take my words with me. After all, if these are, indeed, the words of a "spammer," why should Wikipedia want them? Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Toomanywordstoolittletime ( talk) 16:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
AddendumJust a few moments ago, I logged on to find that I'd been banned permanently as a slammer. (I stepped outside the hotel where I'm staying to punch this out on my iPhone). Ironic, under the circumstances, don't you think? In any event, I've never encountered anything like this, anywhere on the internet. This is, hands down, the most vituperative online community I've ever seen (although, again, you seem quite reasonable). If my experience is anything close to the norm, well ... it can't possibly be -- can it? (toomanywordstoolittletime) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.217 ( talk) 17:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
Bernese Mountain Dog and Leonberger Infobox is not displaying properlyFor whatever reason, the infobox has a lot more information in it than it displays in the article. There is a technical problem. If you could help it would be appreciated. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 16:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Stan
That would a 'duh-moment.' Operator error. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 19:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Stan Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pagesYou reverted my edits in Amazon for Please "making test edits" when I wasn't. I was just seeing if an issue is popular enough to be included in the main page. remember, this was on the TALK PAGE so no vandalism was intended. please assume my good faith next time! 220.101.4.140 ( talk) 04:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Eastside SunI see that you deleted The Eastside Sun from Wikipedia. While your reasons are unimportant to me, I would like to read the article you found so offensive. Where can I find it in archives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.101.77 ( talk) 01:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you......for reverting the vandalism edits to my "thoughts" page. I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
John AmosThanks for taking the trouble to fix the edit history of Talk:John Amos. I did not fix it at the time because I felt sure that the anon would go back and vandalize it again, and I did not want to get into an edit war over it. ••• Life of Riley ( T– C) 02:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC) WP:Spam links about a dog organizationUnited Canine Association. Someone just added a link to this club/business to Leonberger and some other dog articles. I've never heard of this, and I have some experience as a dog-fancier wannabe over the last 20 years. It looks like the only attached club is the "Star of Texas" club. The breed standards are more bullshit than I've read in one place in a long time. As far as I can tell, this is a non-notable organization, which 'recognizes' and provides registration -- (rump registration, since Leonberger Club of American, for example, and I suppose the American Kennel Club and the FCI provide real registration for Leonbergers -- for every (400!) dog breed you've ever (or never) heard of. This just seems to me to be a relatively new commercial enterprise, and I would guess we are about to get links in 400 dog articles. I don't particularly care for the AKC, as I think all they care about are registry fees, too. But this thing has real spammy potential, and I am concerned. I'm not saying we should do anything about this, but maybe someone should think about it. You are one of the spam people, and I thought I'd call this to your attention. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 04:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC) Stan
FiberglassHi there, Politely and respectfully, why on earth are sending me a message related to fiberglass? I suspect you have the wrong person. Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.222.199 ( talk) 20:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
SudhaVijayauEverything required to make the article genuine has been added including the Wikipedia reliable links and external references. Just keep opposing without proper reasons, this way there won't be much more genuine articles written in Wikipedia as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.122.126 ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 12 December 2010
Picture removalHello Barek.
It is now gone. I couldn't find the reason for this in the modification page. How should I go about finding out why the modification has been rejected? Many thanks for your help Steve promotion@inhalater.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.188.230 ( talk) 22:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
AtargatisJust curious as to what criteria you defined the pop culture edits I made as spam. I've seen the reference and links on tons of other pages, and this was a link to a legit appearance in a comic that folks who read about Atargatis might be interested in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.85.151.70 ( talk) 22:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect assumptions on testingHi Barek, thanks for your message, but I'm not testing nor sandboxing. I'm legitimately adding a record to a white-label video service provider. Thank you for your patience; not everyone updates pages at lightening speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.225.7 ( talk) 21:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
DMacksI have a personel problem with this editor. Can you please help me? He seems to edite peoples contributions because it doesnt suit him. I find him abnoxiuos and far too big for his his own botts. Please look at what he changes and tell me if he deserves to be a wiki editor? 89.240.177.14 ( talk) 16:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Would you kindly take a look at this. I know nothing about the subject, but merely happened on it and to the redirect, and I think there is a better way to do it. Merry Christmas to you. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 17:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Stan
Merry ChristmasThe Utahraptor Talk/ Contribs has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas! Spread the WikiLove by adding {{subst:User:The Utahraptor/Christmas tree}} to any editor's talk page with a friendly message. -- The Utahraptor Talk/ Contribs 02:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the helpIt didn't need to be revdeled, as it's nowhere near accurate, but I appreciate the assistance. :-) Wonder if that was related to the Kirkland issues...-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 23:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Network MarketingDo you have a particular hate on for Network Marketing? It appears that you will consistently disallow any attempt at balanced presentation on this forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vejeestu ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 30 December 2010
The Big Bang TheoryTo Whom it may concern: I received one or more notes from you about attempts that I made at editing Wiki's Big Bang Theory main page. Any editing that I attempted was in no way meant to be antagonistic; in fact edits attempted by me were done so in the spirit of accuracy and good faith. Approximately several days ago, I entered the following statement on the page:
Revisiting the page, I was dismayed at how I wrote what I wrote. You will notice that I placed parentheses around the names of the characters and then around "guest star role as Sheldon Cooper's mother, Mary." That is not Laurie Metcalf's character's name. Therefore it should be:
I then realized that that was not quite accurate. I didn't want to leave the reader with the assumption that Sheldon's monther's last name was "Cooper". Perhaps she has a different last name for whatever reason. So, I finally revised it to reflect her identity most accurately and to look like this:
Furthermore, after watching a BBT episode, today, I learned that the address of the appartment building is 2311 Los Robles. I know that the show takes place in Pasadena. I don't think references to addresses are trivial; so I added text to reflect the above. It looked like this:
I titled it "Miscelaneous". You did not accept the edits that I made despite how well-intentioned they were. It is regrettable that my attempts at editing the BBT main page were regarded as vandalism. Ultimately, if you don't like the text that I added, well then, whatever. I was merely trying to make a significant and accurate contribution to the world - as significant as a modification of text on an internet encyclopedia can be. I won't lose sleep over it. Have a great day and good luck raising those millions. I enjoy reading wiki for what it's worth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.100.73 ( talk) 06:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. I forgot to sign and date my post of 1 minute ago. It is the same as it is now, John Doe, December 30, 2010. Happy New Year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.100.73 ( talk) 06:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
|
Dude, STOP CHANGING MY EDITS!Barek, are the the person who is changing my article about the decades? The decade officially began in 2001 because there was no year zero. I wish you would stop being a control freak! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.184.49 ( talk) 00:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, actually...You would have broken that rule also, also it is the official definition for the beginning of a decade, so it isn't unimportant to anything else, also lots of people think that I am right from the talk pages too. Say that 75% agree with you. Maybe 75% of people are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.184.49 ( talk) 00:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I just read your reply again, and I realize that you must stay on Wikipedia all day to find teeny tiny things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.184.49 ( talk) 00:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Dietrich v The QueenI don't think there is any need for you to be involved at this stage, but FYI there is a message at my talk that was addressed to me and you. You may recall that you reverted some changes to Dietrich v The Queen (with an excellent edit summary btw), and I made a related comment on the talk page. That editor (as an IP) has left the message mentioned above. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Preferring the transcripts and the written submissions of the trials and appeals, I could never compete with 'reliable sources' such as those cited in support of the original article, including: Silvester, John (10 June 2005). "Hugo Rich chose the low road". The Age. Retrieved 8 October 2007. Wilkinson, Geoff (6 March 2009). "Bandits fled in seconds". Herald Sun: p. 33. Wilkinson, Geoff (12 June 2009). "Hugo Rich guilty of security guard Erwin Kastenberger's murder". Herald Sun. Retrieved 13 November 2009. - Mark A Clarkson ( talk) 22:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Fairmont-logo.jpgIf you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 04:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
EL thanksThanks on Happy Camp, California. I was past the point of annoyance on it. tedder ( talk) 00:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank youThank you for reverting the vandalism on the Generation page. Your contribution is appreciated. -- CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 18:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Having a problem with the NHRP infobox map. Maybe they changed something in the infobox? As a point of information, this is only PART of the NHRP listing, and may itself not actually be listed (per Elkman). I'm not done with this article, but maybe you could take a look in the meantime. Happy New Year to you. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 19:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Stan
Adventure TravelHi, I noticed you'd removed some spam from Adventure travel in the past, so thought I'd check an edit with you to see if it flies. I've just dropped out the 'Tour operators, travel agencies & retailers' section entirely. It appeared to me to be nothing but spam, and was presented as a key focus of the article. Also, theres a note on the talk page about an agency offering to maintain this section (As further evidence of spam) Do you think this deletion is reasonable? Cheers Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 08:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
My EntryI am sorry, I am just trying to get my company Aflexi listed as a CDN provider. What is the best way to go about doing this? We are new, but I think we should be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OI87 ( talk • contribs) 06:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Surety BondIt looks like you removed the citation from where I got the info for the information posted, then put "need citation". I have to disagree that just because something was created by a private company it is spam. You edited it within 2 minutes, yet the video is 5 minutes long. Therefore it is clear you didn't watch it before making your edit. Can you elaborate? 173.12.56.65 ( talk) 18:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I wasn't aware it was on the blacklist. That's a shame, it has some great information. I'll undo the information I added from watching it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.56.65 ( talk) 19:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Sushi, not SuchiOk, i got it. by the way i tell you that this food(寿司) calls "sushi", not "suchi". thank you. (cur) (prev) 16:26, 16 January 2010 Barek (talk | contribs) (37,381 bytes) (rv - artificial things that are made to look like suchi are not, in fact, suchi. Image is only tangentally related to subject, and does not help to illustrate text of the article.) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NederlandsNederlands ( talk • contribs)
Cruise Youtube links errorOuch! First time for that & I was wrong not to check my source better. They should have been linked to a public page like this http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=5B8F79D0A83619E5 - Will not make that mistake again! Sardine Sam ( talk) 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC) My talk pageBarek, Greetings. I'm having a problem aligning a barnstar. Could you please take a look and see if you can clear up my format problem Thank you and Cheers to you, too. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 17:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Stan
I was just joking when I said that Doughnuts where a drug. Jeez! Boneboy715 ( talk) 20:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Booneboy715
Adding LinksI don't usually use wikipedia, but I always thought that if you had something to share, that you could...no wonder so few actually use it or add to it. Wow, super controlling! So much for wikipedia being by the people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.133.39.2 ( talk) 16:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
If the website content speaks to what the wikipedia article is talking about, I don't see how it would not be appropriate. How can you just automatically deny a site without even looking to see if it is verifiable or has reliable sources? How were you made master of the internet? Are you an employee or just someone who likes to control others? This was not spam, I was not looking for page rank or no follow or whatever you said in your message. I just thought this would be something people might be interested in reading to supplement what they were looking for on wikipedia. That's what I THOUGHT wikipedia was for... but I will have to remember that there are just a few people behind the pages that actually control content. I understand why you wouldn't want spam, but why did you automatically think it was?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.133.39.2 ( talk) 16:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Well you guys obviously spend WAY too much time doing this stuff. No, I don't sit around and read rule books all day long like you apparently do. I thought I understood the purpose of Wikipedia, but obviously I was not totally correct. Thanks for the info. Just remember that things like this are what keep the average person from wanting to participate and it limits participation to the very few who are very "detail oriented" to put it nicely. I heard it's something like only 1% of wikipedia people put in 99% of the content...hmm, sounds like a dictatorship instead of a democracy. Oh well, I tried to participate. Like most things now adays, it's somewhat pointless when there are an "elite" few who are all about control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.133.39.2 ( talk) 17:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of National Motorists AssociationYour opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Motorists Association. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Commercial CDNs" Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Content delivery network. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted." - I've been adding in WINK into the commercial CDNs for some time now - I was actually up there for almost two years beofe Haakon began the removal madness, sure it was removed for the external linking, once it was brought to my attention external links were removed. I don't understand why you are policing the list in the manner you do in conjunction with Haakon (wiki editor) Akamai, Amazon, BitGravity, CacheFly, CDNetworks, Cotendo, EdgeCast, GoGrid, Highwinds, etc.. are allowed in the list - yet you are adamant to remove WINK at every opportunity. How is WINK any different? Why the constant removal? for the record GoGrid is not a CDN it is Cloud Technology that utilizes EdgeCast for their CDN - so in that case EdgeCast is the CDN not GoGrid. And yes I have read all the other profiles and they are really not that relevant - conversely WINK is equally relevant, maybe not worth its own page at this point by worth being in the list. Basically my point is if the attitude is going to be so anti-competitive perhaps it is best to remove the commercial CDN section entirely rather than removing other legitimate CDNs. It is at the point where i have to wonder if perhaps the editor Haakon is getting some kickback for policing the list - I am sure he is not that interesting in Content Delivery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldcupsailing ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Ferndale QuestionWhat was wrong with the link to the video that I used as a citation? It is from Ferndale's official sight. You don't think that a municipality's official website can be trusted? Please explain. Lou2u ( talk) 23:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
semiprotect userpage?Hi- since there's no reason an IP should be editing User:Barek, would you like me to semiprotect it? tedder ( talk) 04:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Corporate BondsPlease tell me why you feel the need to remove my external link to a better explanation of corporate bond risks? It seems to me just bloody mindedness. I am by the way a bond trader with 25 years experience in this area - are you? My interests lie in providing good information, not in 'burning books'! Peter Leahy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjleahy ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very muchVery kind of you. Take care. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 02:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Midland, MichiganCould you take a look at this Midland, Michigan#Sites of interest, and tell me if you think the link to Midland County Historical Societies Heritage Park is spam? From my reading of WP:Spam I think it is. Thanks, Asher196 ( talk) 00:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
domestic help surveyI will look up my Wiki login on my old Blackberry phone tonight so I can login properly. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in until I saw your note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.190.193 ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 17 March 2010 Piano's editI saw that you recently warned Piano and Chaos for edit warring. Have you looked at Piano's edits, especially his threats on user talk pages? He has a pretty one-sided view of WP:SPAM, and instead of discussing what is actually considered spam he's threatening to report editors for "vandalism" when they put sources back into articles and have a page "protected" just to inhibit anyone from disagreeing with him. He doesn't appear to be listening to anything that I say, given that he left my comments on his page with a "that's not compelling enough" comment. Is it possible for you to review some of this situation and at least provide your assessment? I have placed a thread at WP:RSN regarding this issue as well. Others have voiced similar things to Piano, but he has ignored them as well. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Videos do not have ISBNs (International Standard Book Number), it would make no sense for them to. Finding a book that talks about a DVD is something completely different, and you're less likely to find one talking about the release date for every season of a show. DVDs do not have ISBNs. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC) RMNPSorry -- I meant to delete the same link you did. I've run into this before, where simultaneous editing gets confused, with no conflict notification. Weird. -- Elphion ( talk) 19:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
jamesniehues.comDear Barek, perhaps I didn't form my external link properly, however, I do believe it to be a value resort on the subject matter. What better way to understand the meaning of "Ski Resort" then to see an aerial depictions of the best ski resorts in the world illustrated by the most famous Ski Map Artist in the world??? I believe you will agree that this is a value resource link. I will endeavor to make my entries less promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatman1 ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear Barek, you can't be serious about the WP:NOT#REPOSITORY thing seeing how ski resorts only has one external link, added another one hardly makes it a REPOSITORY. Regarding WP:ELNO, the only guideline that the external link [2] I posted possible treads on is the one about personal website, however, since James Niehues is considered an expert in his field, depicting ski resorts for the masses, it can be easily argued that his website is a value resource for the topic. Did you bother to examine the external link? Did you not see first hand the value of the content on that webpage to the subject matter "Ski Resorts"? If you are going to deny wikipedia users access to content you should at least endeavor to make sure that the content isn't a true resource. And if you visit the webpage and review the content there and come away from it thinking it's not a value resource directly on topic, then you should probably not be an editor of this topic. In my opinion that is. I ask you to please read the title WP:ELNO again and make note of the word "Normally". I image it's there because there are exemplary exceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatman1 ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
What gives you the right?To declare non-spam links as spam. If you are simply spiteful about being proven wrong simply be a man and admit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckman963 ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Monjeau lookoutHello Barek. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Monjeau lookout, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Ged UK 08:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Carnival UKMany thanks for your comments, it's nice to have your work complimented on Wikipedia occasionally. In response, I'm a little ambiguous on whether Carnival UK should have its own article. It is 'technically' a separate company, being the UK listed holding company of the Carnival Group, however it does all come under the banner of Carnival Corp/PLC, so I think making a new article for it would suggest it is disconnected in some way, when it has the same board of directors etc as the rest of the Carnival Group. Perhaps this should be put up for a consensus discussion somewhere, as it would also be useful to expand on the Costa Cruises division of the company too. Crazy-dancing ( talk) 14:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you!I truly appreciate your honesty and candid response. To receive such an informative response initially would have been extremely helpful. Although all your words don't speak truth to me and seem vague, I understand where your coming from and how you formed you decisions. Also it's funny because almost all of those edits are true even though you somehow know a source saying they are not. For example, Fairyland is across from the high school. Anyways, I am OK with it now that I have received a thoughtful response. Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciguyrules ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 April 2010 But can't I claim to be the victim? I said that Concord-Carlisle High School was across from Fairyland. This is in fact true and a staple of the high schoolers, as it is place many teachers and students go. Is that vandalism? Hi, you said that my edits were not factual. Here's a pretty solid source. Would this suffice in the future? This http://www.getupngoadventures.com/html/fairyland.html and this http://www.getupngoadventures.com/html/fairyland.html Those are both quality sources that prove the accuracy of my information. Thanks! C.I. Ciguyrules —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciguyrules ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 14 April 2010
Homeless articlesHi Barek. User:Elpacifico3 ( User talk:Elpacifico3) continues to ravage the article on Homelessness which you had rvv'd. But more was done after that. I rolled it to a stable version but it's hard to chase. I assume the edits he made are spurious. Perhaps you can have a look. Bests. --- Wikiklrsc ( talk) 02:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
User:COIBot/Pokethat did not work, but since I did this, the next time it will. :-) -- Dirk Beetstra T C 15:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 15:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Created a nomination for you: User:Barek/RFA; I didn't transclude the template, because you should be entirely capable of doing those steps. Let me know if you have questions, and contacting me via email wouldn't be a bad idea. tedder ( talk) 21:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for Input on PayPal PageHi Barek, Thanks for feedback. I've added this information as it's the lessons we've learned and gathered from various parts of PayPal's sites, plus a quote which we included. I wish someone else had written it so that I could have read it months ago...I would have saved a lot of time. A few questions 1) I understand all quotes need to be attributed, but how does one attribute a quote that was sent via email? Post it to a website, then reference THAT site? 2) Was that quote the only issue? Or am I not fully understanding the research material issue? I'd like to help flush out this section, but looking for some guidelines. Thanks DogStar5 ( talk) 17:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC) DogStar5, April 15, 2010
questionI've added one. Dloh cierekim 13:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I put in an infobox, but it doesn't display his being the archbishop, and I don't know how to get the army service (See Hugo Black for example) to display, too. Please take a look. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 13:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Stan
Smart idea!That was a great idea! 7 00:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Reduction in dramaI have a new idea. The idea is that ANI is full of drama, complainers, bad editors, etc. Instead of arguing, what if we set a very high standard for Wikipedia. If you fail to meet the standard, you are blocked. However, the blocks are short. It would be expected that many people would be blocked. If you are a busy body and argue, you get blocked for a week. If you edit really badly, also a week. If you accuse others of something and don't have a solid case, you are also blocked. If you plagiarize, even if innocently done (so you claim), you get blocked for a week. If you download a copyrighted picture, also a week block. Then all the crackpots who don't edit will get the message. On the other hand, indefinite blocks will be much reduced. You have to present a pretty good case to indefinitely block someone. If you fail to present a good case, the accuser gets a week block. If someone later runs for RFA, a week block is not the kiss of death as it is just a learning tool to prevent all this bad Wikipedia editing and drama. This proposal I have NOT thought through long and hard but rather than be scared to say something, I am describing it to you. Call it the parking ticket aspect of Wikipedia. Now, Wikipedia is all argument, drama, and if there are blocks, many of them are indefinite so there is no middle ground. A one week block also clears the mind. Every month, I pretend I am blocked and do not edit from the first of the month for a few days. Then when I come back, I am refreshed! Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 19:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations( X! · talk) · @102 · 01:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations! Don't let the spammers get on your nerves. Now get blacklisting. MER-C 03:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Quick, get the mop! People with mops are given greater weight. You now have the mop. Go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines in particular the top one, which is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RFC:_new_proposal_to_make_this_a_policy Voice an opinion. I don't care what the opinion is, yes or no. I would like one admin to make an opinion. One opinion is not canvassing. It is a call for an expert opinion. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 17:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Random person dropping by to say congrats to you on your adminship. :) -- Aspectacle ( talk) 05:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) How can you delete a full listing of where this Fraternity has it's active and Inactive chapters. Like any other fraternity or Sorority on Wikipedia, why shouldn't we have our chapters listed. I could understand remove the links to individual websites but not the entire listing. To me that is pure BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.203.234 ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 April 2010
the Fraternity listing does none of that. It lists the chapters of the National Fraternity. If you are going to remove our chapter listings, than you should be going into every Fraternity that has a listing of chapters and removing theirs as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by APD03 ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 27 April 2010
So basically, I can go to any other Fraternity listing on Wiki and delete for that reason. Just because, the way you interpret what someone has stated has to be your way. Sorry I disagree, You first state Wiki is not a Yellow pages, and I agree and read what you asked and none of that is listed. If you asked us to move the links to another section that could be done as well. But the fact that you are deleting the list from your interpretation is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by APD03 ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess I will have to accept what your decision was, I do not have to agree with it, and as for Tedder's comparison of a Fraternity to an International Super store like Wal-mart is a little of base. I would rather you compare apples to apples and not apples to bananas. If there is a project trying to clean up all the Fraternities and Sororities, why wouldn't you include their chapters, if a prospective pledge came on here to do research on the Organization, knowing where they have chapters is a big thing, And yes they could go to the official Website, but we use Wikipedia for short and straight to the point answers. APD03 ( talk) 17:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Spam-like editsI've come accross User:Sheilamichell who is using their account to add unsourced information regarding awards from the charity Death Penalty Focus to various celebrity articles (about 70 celebrity articles in just two days). It looks like spamming, but the editor links to the charity's article instead of the Death Penalty Focus website. To me this would appear to be both a WP:BLP and promotional issue, but I'm unsure if I'm just overeacting. Since you're a wikiproject spam member I thought I'd go straight to an expert. Cheers, -- Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 20:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI, if you come across these types of edits in the future: This might a misguided attempt to increase the PageRank of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Penalty_Focus, which unsurprisingly has a link to http://deathpenalty.org. If WP didn't use nofollow, that increased PR would flow on to their website. It's a cynical way of viewing things, but years in the anti-spam business does that to you. MER-C 09:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The Poly ShockerWhy would I not be able to edit the shovker page? It is not vandalism but a fact what i posted. For that reason it should stay, it is not offensive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahpoly ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 29 April 2010
what ?What the heck are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmghosthost ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 30 April 2010
Protection of white tigerI requested temporary semi-protection, you said you would semi-protect for a week, then protected it indefinetly. Just notifying you of this, in case it is a mistake. Bramble claw x 00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Requested move of ship articleI've commented at the RM. I'm still of the opinion that the move should take place, but it seems that NC-S needs to be rewritten. Mjroots2 ( talk) 05:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Machu PicchuThe Bot rejected my first post on Machu Picchu saying it did not like the Youtube link so I took it out. The edit then disappeared again so I added it again. I did not see anything about the other links being a problem until just now. I am happy to remove the links to the personal web site but I believe there should be information indicating that the model is available in Google Earth and Google Maps. The 3D model provides more practical information than a thousand written words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmolsen ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I got a reply from Tommy2010 on my talk page regarding Machu Picchu and also from you. I cannot reply to TOmmy because there is no Edit or reply link on his pages. How do I reply to him please? Is there any problem with me just updating the Machu Picchu page to say there is a 3D model of it available on Google Earth with no links added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmolsen ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you please respond to my questions on the Machu Picchu discussion. Pmolsen ( talk) 02:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Burlington, ColoradoBarek, Just wanted to thank you for your intervention and only administering a warning for me. You certainly seem to understand what a heartfelt subject this is for myself and others. Thank you again for your help in the matter. Let's hope that the MIT user(s) don't continue to press the issue in the manner they had chosen, after the protection expires on the 8th. Take care, BC1121 ( talk) 02:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC) help with AfD process?I'm wondering whether you might consider helping continue, or just looking into, an AfD process that I have begun. I do not have a wikipedia account, nor am I well versed in the technical processes involved in editor-level wikipedia revisions. I saw a recently-created page, Hope_May, that I thought did not meet the wikipedia notability guidelines. I've tried to start the deletion process of this page by placing an AfD tag in the article, but apparently (and understandably) only a user with an account can continue the process. Following instructions, I just notified the user who created the article that I had inserted an AfD tag, I saw your name on the user's talk page. Frankly, because I don't know anyone with wikipedia account, your name was all I could come up with: I figured I'd ask you if you happen to have a chance to glance at this article and see if you'd be willing to continue the AfD process, or to reverse what I've started it if I'm mistaken about wikipedia notability guidelines. I gave my justifications on the discussion page. Thanks for your time, and my apologies for bothering you with this somewhat random request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.75.174 ( talk) 01:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Why are you protecting Michel Shane, who continues to steal from people. Why don't you take a look at the numerous cases listed in michelshane.net before you protect this scam artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.52.241 ( talk) 22:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Tweaks please. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 13:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Stan
I have reverted your edit to this article. The competitors section was revised several times following a discussion. The competitors are included due to their discussion in external reference material mentioning both the article subject and the competitor. Please use the discussion page before removing a whole section that has been already debated. 80.46.47.216 ( 80.46.47.216 - 10:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
User:AbminHiyas Barek - Looks like the anon who has been spamming the Vaporizer article has got himself an account at Abmin ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He's done some reasonable changes to vaporizer, and then managed to put his ubie stuff back in referencing 'skunkmagazine.com' and the patent. I can't view skunkmagazine to have any idea if its reliable, since its blocked by my work. I suspect I know what the answer is, but figured I'd run it past you. Thanks for any help. Syrthiss ( talk) 12:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Barek, I tried adding Haven Hill should be separately listed under the Protected Areas of Michigan template box as a "National Natural Landmark", and I think all I did was screw it up. Please see if you can fix my error. Sorry to be a bother. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 18:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Stan
List of National Natural Landmarks in Michigan contains their identities, and also uses a redirect from Havel Hill to Highland Recretation Area. I didn't do that, so someone else did. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 08:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Stan
NotesSULIn process --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 22:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Tinnitus is your brainwaves, as measurable with an EEGCheers Barek!
Why an external link is deleted?I added the link, www.gptrac.org of Great Plains Telehealth Resource & Assistant Center on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telehealth and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telemedicine, hoping it would be useful for Wikipedia users who seek for more information about telehealth and telemedicine. However, it is deleted. The project is funded by the U.S. government, Grant number G22IT16263 from the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth: Health Resources Service Administration/DHHS. This organization is providing a service for free and they do not hire me to advertise them. It is confusing to me that a lot of external links Wikipedia allows as external links on these two pages are non-profit and not really relevant as much as this one. Additionally, this project is associated with the university ( http://gptrac.ahc.umn.edu/) just like some links appear on the articles. Would it be possible for you to suggest me on my talk page what should I do in order to succeed in adding this link without being deleted? Thanks in advance for your help. Nan KT~11.21PM (CST)~Monday, May 10, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nan KT ( talk • contribs) 66.177.1.203Hello Barek.
Spam-blacklist questionHi, I'd like to ask your advise please. Few months ago an editor (not me) was severely punished for including in an article references to so called "racist" site. The info that was included in that article was not racist at all, and is found on few other sites, but the site the editor used is considered "racist" by many editors although I myself have never looked at it in details. So the question is, if there is a way to blacklist that site, that nobody ever again used it as a reference by a pure accident? Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 17:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Add external siteHello Barek! I try to add site about solyanka, but you delete it. Could you tell me why? What i have to do, ti add site. Best regards, Alexander —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.92.161.139 ( talk) 21:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Kelleys IslandDiscussions between interested editors, often taking place on user talk pages, have agreed that it's a helpful link. The person behind this IP address (who's also behind several others as well) has been attempting for many months to remove it for specious reasons; among other things, s/he said that it should be removed because it violated a quoted passage of Wikitravel policy. At the same time, the IP is spamming a related article. Given the overall editing pattern, it's plain that the person behind the IP is trying to spam in reverse. Nyttend ( talk) 23:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Question re: codingblock these personal pages: without blocking the entire Google Knol site? Thanks in advance. -- Ckatz chat spy 03:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
usurp on pl wikiplease confirm your identity on en wiki if you want to usurp an account on pl wiki. sorry for the inconvienence and the laziness of our bureaucrats (including me). link to your? request. Maikking ( talk) 20:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Rental Business SoftwareHello, you deleted following topic in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rental_management_software
with reason. Can you explain? <ref> is not allowed, so it is possible to edit and delete them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.13.244.10 ( talk) 06:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Vball29Hi Barek. As my AIV report is not being acted on, can you please block the edit-warring and spamming SPA if you are still available? Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 04:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Why did you delete my entry on Healthy diet?Hi, Why do you state that my entry on Healthy diet concerning Anti-Inflammation Diet is linkspam? I understand that I was a bit aggressive with my entries in Diet and Dieting (but if a normal person types those two in wikipedia or google, what do you expect that they are searching for, most of the times?), but my entry for Healthy diet was perfectly valid. If you want I will put it into another section of Healthy diet stating that WHO, AHA, etc, have not recognized it yet. If you think that I am affiliated with Dr. Sears and his company, you are dead wrong. I am user of his dieting guidelines, and the only reason why I wrote of his two products in my article page is because they are quite simply the best in the marketplace and for very specific reasons. Once the marketplace will be producing products equivalent to these two, then I will be quite happy to endorse all of them impartially. I repeat that I am not affiliated with Dr. Sears, and the reason why I have put more than a day's worth in typing that stuff is because I believe that I can help people by being as exact as possible (if I write of two products that I find ideal because of very specific reasons, then what is the problem? It helps people understand what they should expect, and when the marketplace responds by producing products equivalent to these two along with the quality standard that Dr. Sears makes his products go through, then I will write that any of these products is ideal). Thanks, Nfbetakappa ( talk) 19:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfbetakappa ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
please stop vandalizing the bhangra bands pagethe information is being sourced from cassette covers and bands themselves dont delete things you have no idea about —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxiousnews ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Bhangra is not about notability or popularity, because it is not pop music. I have the source tapes with the listed band members, others contributions have come from band pages etc. What you are doing is vandalizing because most of these bands can easily be googled and you can find info on their releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.100.147 ( talk) 14:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
talkpage of User_talk:The_Thing_That_Should_Not_BeHi it seems the IP is not listening and has left another personal attack on User_talk:The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Barek, I see you just reverted some spam on some articles I watch. Thanks for doing that. It's demoralizing to me (a newbie Wikipedian) that many Wikipedia articles on IQ testing or related topics contain more spam that sourced article content. I'll try to add content gradually, as I check sources, and we can both clean away the spam. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 19:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Barek, would you please take a look and give me your advice. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 16:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Stan
Keyword Research PageI disagree with your removal of the external link that I added to the Keyword research page. According to the Wikipedia guidelines for external links: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content" The link I provided has a great deal of relevant details demonstrating examples of the usage of keyword research in creating web content and is a perfect complement to the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.22.26 ( talk) 01:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but having an affiliate link on the sidebar doesn't not make the site a "front-end for the commercial site seoelite.com". Is the Google search engine a front end for every product that advertises in the side of the search results? I added that link over a year ago to the Keyword research page and you are first person, of the many who have edited that page to dispute it. I don't think that qualifies as anything more than a personal issue or bad judgment on your part. Replacing the link is not a matter of a war but simply reinstating a valuable resource that had achieved condenses from many other reviewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.22.26 ( talk) 02:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Point Roberts PageHi Barek: I can already tell from the tone of your response to others' concerns that you will outlast me and that you are likely to win this dispute in the end. I'm not sure why people of your ilk cannot find something constructive to do, instead of devoting their time to destruction and the desire to win an argument. I personally added the majority of the external links you have now removed from the "Point Roberts" article, as a result of extensive research (over a five year period) on the topic. These links weren't added maliciously or by vendors trying to hawk their wares. They weren't harming anyone. They were put their to help to simplify life and foster the concept of community in the disparate collection of families and individuals who live on or visit this small peninsula. I feel that you used a very broad brush to eradicate these links. Could it be that a laser-like focus on each individual link might have been more appropriate? Or is it possible that you simply get off on starting arguments as a form of entertainment? Why would you remove links to additional information on local Whatcom County Parks, or the Cascadia trail? Do these links really violate your oft cited wiki guidelines? ( Gnatdroid ( talk) 18:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC))
Specific Carbohydrate Diet pageI have Sandra Ramacher's permission to copy the pictures from her cookbook. How do I proceed? Glida7 ( talk) 02:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
WTFI was just writing to let you know that I did not appreciate you taking down another users wikipedia edit to the city of las cruces. Clearly you aren't from las cruces because if you were you'd be appreciative of a cult icon stopping into town and then tweeting about it to his 1.5 million followers about us. It's certainly more significant than the songs that nobody has heard of. OUR culture is not YOUR culture so you have NO business dictating what is significant about it. Look at the pride we display at our new term: http://twitter.com/#search?q=las%20pusas I'm sure twitter is something you turn your nose at but it is a measure of cultural activity, and this is the topic at hand . . . ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.58.106 ( talk) 23:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
WaileaJust wondering why you removed the information I added to Wailea about the Shops at Wailea mall. Perhaps you thought I was adding information that you considered to be advertisement for certain vendors, however that isn't the case. I visited Maui recently and heard about a mall in Wailea, but when I tried to find information about it online there wasn't much. I thought that it would be helpful for anyone else searching for information about Wailea to know about the mall there. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for, to provide useful information to other people? Please do not delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GixxerSteve ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Specific Carbohydrate DietAll the owners of these photographs gave me the right to put the pictures on Wikipedia. I am sorry that I was not familiar with the procedures. However, I did not put Wikipedia in any risk of copyright litigation since the owners were happy to get their pictures on this website. Is it OK if I ask the owners of the photographs to submit the pictures themselves? Would that make the procedure more simple? Glida7 ( talk) 23:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your help. Thank you very much. I have some more writing to add to the Specific Carbohydrate Diet page. I want to check it in advance with the editors of that page. Are you in charge to that page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glida7 ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism - Warning #1Barek, a cited collegiate article qualifies as a reliable source. This contradicts your revisions to a previous non-cited piece of information and constitutes vandalism. Please consider this your first warning and cite your source should you wish to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikimanzi ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank youThank you for fixing the link on Don Murphy now please fix the other one. That Active Banana is actually quite lazy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BassandAle ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
If you read WP:3RR, you will see that reversions of edits by banned users do not count as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule. – Pee Jay 18:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
bobbinis-kitchen.comDear Barek, in regard to your spam declaration for bobbinis-kitchen.com/quarkkeulchen: please would you be so kind to explain to me the difference between the empiric example (see url above) and http://www.recipe-recipes-message-board.com/forum/view_topic.php?forum_id=98&id=1276 that is still denoted as a sample on the article quarkkeulchen and not declared as spam?? I do not understand where the linking to a webpage of noncommercial extent like bobinis-kitchen.com/quarkkeulchen breaks the rules of linking. Especially, when the content of this webpage is definetly scientifical and not just entertainment or business. As far as wikipedia declared, there are anyway no exceptional advantages that any webpage could get by beeing linked to from a wikipedia article. I would appreciate if we could undo the spam declaration for bobbinis-kitchen.com. Regards Bonzothedog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzothedog ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Barek, I think, I understand your point of view in parts. I hope you can understand mine and Anna's (see above), too. The wikipedia-rules for linking that you quote seem to be inconsistent. When one link is legal and the other link to the same type of inforessource is illegal. On the other hand is the conclusion inconsistent that a user like me that has linked round about 5 times to the same site but different pages is guilty of linkspaming. To return to the path of the righteos man I would like to initiate a discussion on some of the articles I tried to cultivate a little bit. As you see linking isn't my only usage of wikipedia. My next approach will be to ask you (I will not change the article without your permission): Don't you think we could add the url: http://www.bobbinis-kitchen.com/stuffed-cabbage/ to the external links on the article cabbage roll? Please compare the existing links to national variations of that recipe with the one I suggested. No difference. A german recipe is missing and of great importance to complete the whole article. My improvement to the article was to denote the german name "Kohlroulade" and to link to a good german example. How can we understand the world without examples? Thank you for your feedback. Bonzothedog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzothedog ( talk • contribs) 02:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
(By the way, as tone and manner are very important, but often difficult to communicate with keystrokes, my demeanour is intended to be: polite, respectful, honest, but quite to the point). Best wishes Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 13:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh well, can't say I didn't try! – Pee Jay 00:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Creating backlogsHey Barek, you might want to have a look in Category:Local COIBot Reports. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I added a post to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 19:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Delete the "ken Harycki" page and I will stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.155.35.225 ( talk) 04:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you lookup Spencer Tunick Barek on Wikipedia,you'll find the pic with Banksy and James DeWeaver are on Tunick's wiki page when Tunick first went to Australia !In mid-2000,on a trip to Sydney and Melbourne, Australia, he met up with the Gen-X pastellist, visual activist, and recluse James DeWeaver in Byron Bay where he stencilled a parachuting rat with a clothes peg on its nose above a toilet at the Arts Factory Lodge. In 2008, the owners of the backpackers found out its value and relocated it. This stencil can no longer be located. Banksy posed nude for Spencer Tunick along with DeWeaver and forty others in this same time period, the resulting photo can be seen on DeWeaver's site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.88.206 ( talk) 04:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You have arbitrarily deleted the spreadsheets that I have made available through external links on various pages (United States Treasury security, Corporate Bonds, Interest Rate Swap, Asset Swap, Z Spread). I teach training courses at all of the major investment banks on these subjects, the spreadsheets are very popular and are offered for free. What exactly is the problem here? Yes they are offered without citations; they are practical and real rather than purely academic and theoretical, is that the problem? This kind of action will gradually diminish the value of Wikipedia articles. Can I strongly but politely suggest that you look at the content offered and reflect carefully before (thoughtlessly it would seem) deleting them? Regards, Peter Leahy (By the way I do seem to have used 2 different logins 'peterjleahy' and 'pjleahy' - nothing sinister here, just a little disorganised!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjleahy ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I have to say that your comments still convey no suggestion that you have looked at the content offered. I should also say that the the spreadsheets have been downloaded by plenty of users - about 40 even during the brief time you left them up, no other such information is available on Wikipedia.The spreadsheets are detailed and exact calculations that can not be incorporated into the Wikipedia text. They are offered absolutely free of any charge, comittment or registration. I feel that your approach is over zealous and reveals a lack of concern for good content, just an obsession with arbitrarily imposed rules and ‘because you can’. The spreadsheets provide practical and real information on the products concerned. It is, I feel, worth pointing out that most of the useful content of, for example, ‘Corporate Bonds’ was provided by me after our last discussion, this has not been changed since in spite of all the rather insulting comments made about my lack of convincing expertise, gleaned exactly how I wouldn’t know! I have a depressing sense of foreboding that you are already in the process of selecting a similarly minded friend amongst the Wiki-police who will fully support you, and going by my last experience, in rather personal and insulting terms. You refer to the content as ‘spam’. This is casually insulting and again suggests that you have not troubled yourself to explore the content offered. You plainly feel that exercising your authority is more important than relevant and accurate content. The content is the product of hard work and expertise and is offered for free on 5 pages to which it is directly relevant and adds to the content of those pages. I challenge you to ask any bond / fixed-income expert whether the spreadsheets are a useful addition to the pages concerned. Please take up this challenge but not by using one of your cosy pals that automatically agree with you. Perhaps it would be a better idea to embrace and encourage people like me with directly relevant industry experience rather than to work at driving us away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjleahy ( talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Jarmentmay26Would you mind extending the block of Jarmentmay26 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to indef? Materialscientist ( talk) 04:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Contrarian Investing LinksI noticed that you removed the link to my weblog, Guzzo the Contrarian. I have been running my non-partisan contrarian weblog since 1996 and it fits within the Contrarian Investing guidelines. I am a true contrarian individual investor. Before you try to tell me that it is a spam link, could you please explain to me why my link is more spammish than the link to Warren Buffett's link, who charges investors for his services? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PharmAZy ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Wodenheln's edit of my talk pageThanks for the revert, just so you're aware of what he was trying to edit back in to my page: It was a flaming rant. -- Marty Goldberg ( talk) 05:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC) And now he's doing edits like [10] -- Marty Goldberg ( talk) 05:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
UBXHi, I noticed you make userboxes and wanted some feedback on mine and what to do with it now (I already listed it in the new userboxes page) Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 21:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Please be calmIn the -Begging You- article nobody is spamming and we have reached a consensus that u arbitrarily are trying to broke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim FOR sure ( talk • contribs) 03:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Misconduct and bias against external competing wiki pagesYour recent attempt to characterize a link to a competing wiki provider as "linkspam" is an obvious abuse of your position as an administrator. This destructive conduct does an overall disservice to Wikipedia, even when considering your removal of true linkspam. Wikipedia may have an agenda to censor their competitors, but please, at least be honest about the rationale of a removal. Masking such an effort by referencing linkspam rules is intellectually dishonest and downgrades both the quality and utility of Wikipedia. If you disagree, please read the linkspam rules yourself, and try to find a specific clause that corresponds. An external link to a neutral comparison wiki obviously complies with linkspam and your claim here stating "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion" makes it evident that you're putting quite a spin on this. To claim that a comparison wiki maintained by a community of volunteers is a "promotion" is an obvious mischaracterization. Your actions are shown to be driven by emotion. This is clear because after you destroyed a whole article comparison page using the rationale that a comparison page violates both wp:directory and wp:linkfarm, you destroyed it again after the community restored it in a way that complies with your personal interpretation of the rules (that is, with links and names removed). Your continual removals of compliant and useful information suitable to researchers demonstrates a compelling need to "win" what you're seeing as a "battle" against the community. This is evident from your secondary rationale from the re-removal, where you state that the content is "not notable" (which you later contradict). Please try to take a more cooperative approach. If you have another administrator do the secondary removals, it will add credibility to the merit of removal. -- Jgombos ( talk) 06:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Inconsistent removal and contradictory actionsYour initial stance against a comparison page on the grounds of wp:directory and wp:linkfarm expressed in Talk:Online_post_office is fair enough, in principle. You made it clear that comparison pages (like Comparison_of_webmail_providers) is not at Wikipedia standards when there are links to outside companies, and in the end the community accepted this. Then later when you discovered similar content outside of Wikipedia, you did a 180 degree reversal of your stance, proposing to violate the very rules you were enforcing to begin with. Please try to be more consistent. -- Jgombos ( talk) 06:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Talk:LibThanks for the heads-up. (I was pretty sure the bright-line 3RR wasn't crossed though. I had quite a number of edits that were responses to legitimate threads, but maybe you counted all of my edits in there yesterday.....?) In any case, yes, the reversions were getting pretty excessive. BigK HeX ( talk) 11:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear sirI am trying to repair an article that carries a NPOV warning. It is the POV-warriors who are warring, not I. Keep in mind that the section as existing violates copyright law, attribution directives as per WP:MOS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Is It Raining Underground? ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Another opinionHey Barek. As a ships guy with a great deal of experience in spam issues, I wonder if you could take a look at this conversation. It may well be a over-optimistic, but I sense a possibility for rehabilitation may exist. Thanks. Haus Talk 17:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
User:Hairhappy2You left a block notice on the page of Hairhappy2 ( talk · contribs) but you didn't actually block them. Please do so as they have just created a blatant Park51-related attack page. elektrik SHOOS 05:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC) RE: User:Kralizec!Thanks! I really appreciate it! — Kralizec! ( talk) 21:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Regarding Alpha delta psi articleHey, I was the one that tagged it for speedy deletion. I have been in discussion with people who have been working on the article at my talk page, and was just about to change the tag to PROD to give them a chance to bring it "up to snuff". Per WP:BITE, could we perhaps restore the article, or maybe userfy it to the article creator, to give it some time and to give the newbs a chance to learn a bit about Wikipedia? Thanks! -- Jayron 32 04:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
My fanclub is back (ie, vandal at work)The IP-hopping vandal with a grudge against me, who you put in a lot of work blocking a night or two ago, is back and busy vandalizing pages I've recently done cleanup work on and such (examples [11], [12], [13]) as well as his usual Howard Stern-related obsessions [14], [15]. Any way to get some rangeblocks in place, or will we have to play whack-a-mole again? Thanks very much. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Editing pagesI have added some material to some pages and then received a message from you. This is the first time I've edited anything on Wikipedia, and I'm not sure what I've done that might be incorrect. Grateful if you could let me know. Thanks and best wishes, Hugh Hunter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh H Hunter ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Barek, Many thanks for taking the time to reply to my question; I appreciate that you must be busy. I must say, however, that I'm still left confused about your view on this: it seems to me arbitrary at best, and almost capricious. In what sense was my addition 'solely to promote a book.' It is true that I wish for the book to be known about, but in as much as it is a book set in - and largely about my official work in - Orlando I cannot see why it is inappropriate to mention it in the section "In popular culture'. There are other books mentioned on that page and in that section, so why aren't they 'solely promoting a book'? Additionally, there are references to sports franchises, cars, bands and all sorts of other things that must surely, on the same criteria you apply, be 'solely to promote' a product. Further, there are actually Wikipedia pages completely and only about books. How are they not promoting themselves? In my entries I specifically did not say that the book was good, nor did I recommend it in any way. I did provide a link to the publisher, but only because when I read the Wikipedia guidelines it encourages you to substantiate an entry with references. The best way to substantiate that my book exists, and that I'm not just making it up, or vandalizing the site, is to provide a link to the publisher. If I've misunderstood that, then the simple solution is to remove the reference to the publisher. Consequently, I cannot understand how I was 'promoting' the book. The only other aspect of this that seems to potentially apply to me is the section on autobiography and conflict of interest. I read these guidelines carefully. Wikipedia does not prohibit such entries, it only encourages you to think carefully before writing an entry. It is true that I wrote the book I mentioned in my edits, but I cannot make that clear to the public as Wikipedia prohibits this (for, it seems to me, good reasons). Nevertheless, if I'm fair and objective, why should it matter? Are you seriously suggesting that there aren't many books (or for that matter, other things/products) that appear legitimately on Wikipedia that weren't written by the author/manufacturer or somesuch? Most of them probably take the precaution of writing under an alias or getting a friend or colleague to do it, but I chose to be more direct in what I did. After your first messages last night I re-added my book to the Orlando page, but without the link to the publisher. It was removed again by someone else (I shall copy this message to that person also). I am, as you probably can tell, somewhat frustrated at this as it seems so unfair. I added edits to other pages last night (all of which you deleted and I've not re-visited). In the case of Krishna Maharaj and Chantal McCorkle - both convicted felons - their Wikipedia pages must surely have been set up and run by them (or close friends and supporters) for the purposes of presenting their cases. I am totally unable to understand why my adding the existence of my book, which discusses their cases, is advertising or any less promotional than the very existence of their pages. In the case of Slick Rick - also a convicted felon, whose case is discussed in my book - I expect also that his page is, if not created and sustained by him, at least managed by those close to him. I believe in all these cases that if a scholar or someone who is even just casually interested in these people were to use Wikipedia to research them, they should know about a book that deals with their cases. I would be grateful if you could, when you find the time, address these points that I raise. Very best wishes, Hugh Hunter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh H Hunter ( talk • contribs) 11:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Personal rapid transitBarek, you should read the discussion page of PRT article. 91.78.245.121 ( talk) 17:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Planetimplant.comBarek, I think you misunderstand. Planetimplant.com is am informational site and requires no membership fee and does not sell anything. It is both for the public to increase understanding of dental implants and for dentists, manufacturers and laboratories to join together to better understand and advance the field.(1009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oraldr ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of Amber Dawn Lee talk pagethis is seriously like chasing my own tail -- you only deleted this because the page it's associated with is missing -- AGAIN ignoring updates on the talk page. PER WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES I've been trying to update, resurrect deleted pages I thought were in error, and I have about 5 different admins deleting stuff willy nilly. PLEASE CAN SOMEONE HELP ME HERE?!? -- Kevjkelly ( talk) 03:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
That would be much appreciated, thank you! could you possibly please restore Renegade Theatre Experiment to my userspace as well -- I was updating it to more strictly comply with the Wikipedia guidelines and removed potentially copywritten materials. Thanks a bunch! -- Kevjkelly ( talk) 04:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Network MarketingBarek, while I accept that there were errors in my html (which is obviously a slim excuse), the fact remains that you have repeatedly deleted any attempt to cast a positive view on network marketing. Your excuse that my two measly sentences were redundant is plainly untrue. There is nothing in the article whatsoever that would evidence that claim. Either delete the entire article, which is manifestly negative from end to end, or allow the fair inclusion of positive material, of which there is a great deal extant in the world. In my view, your approach to so-called editing amounts to a flagrant attempt to control the message. Vejeestu ( talk) 03:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)vejeestu|talk]] Vejeestu ( talk) 03:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't find a talk page, but the fact remains that "redundant" is a judgment and terming useful references "advertising" is also a judgment justifying unwarranted interference in ANY and EVERY attempt to balance this distinctly negative page. You are masking personal prejudice under a thin veneer of being a wikicop fighting "redundancy" and "advertising". Vejeestu ( talk) 14:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Your unexplained revert.Please justify or undo: [16] -- Elvey ( talk) 18:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
ThanksThanks as always for your quick work on reverting talk page vandalism. 7 03:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC) LinksummaryAs a frequent contributor to wp:wpspam I thought you might find
this script useful to add to your monobook. The simple explanation of its use is that if you type "L:SomeDomainName.com" into the regular Wikipedia search box it will take you to a linksearch results page. I created this because when reverting spam I often find myself wanting to run a linksummary link but end up having to create a new section on my talk page or the spammers where I preview a linksummary link.
PepsiThanks for undoing my edit on Pepsi I was not to sure if I got it right well I guess that will come in time. btw is it proper to mark messages like this "minor edits" TucsonDavid ( talk) 17:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Jolt (Transformers)I was hoping to talk about your deletion of Jolt (Transformers). It was deleted for lacking notability and third party sources. I didn't recreate the page, I wrote a fresh page, much smaller, no non-free images, complete with MANY sources. It deserves to stand on it's own merits, not the deletion decision of the old, bulky, page with no sources. Let me know what you think. Mathewignash ( talk) 10:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Would you please take a look at my last edit and see if you can fix the formatting? Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 03:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Stan
WoWpediaWowpedia is now at AfD. I left a comment there, you may want to as well. Thanks for leaving me the note after I declined the speedy. Protonk ( talk) 18:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hellohello sir I found that no such unlocking information on wiki so I submit this I know ref is nofollow so please let me know the mistake I am doing. I feel that this information including website which has information about unlocking can be here. Please let me know how can I improve my mistakes. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unlockblackberry ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
iPhone 4I am not sure how to cite my claim. But on apple.com there is an option after selecting "Buy iPhone" that says "Live chat" which connects you with an official Apple representative. I have asked them about the release date of the White iPhone, and they have stated by the end of 2010. Go see for yourself. Besides, nothing should be considered official unless there is a press release from Apple on the Apple website. P.S. My real username is: JJVrocks . I just did not feel like loggin in. 72.66.118.175 ( talk) 04:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
decorationpoint.com unfairly blacklistedHello Barek, I feel I have unfairly been taken spammed by my competition simplysteonbach.com on wikipedia. We have had some bad blood through competition and I must admit he is much more tech savvy than myself. I do not recognize the IP addresses you have filed as spam clearly. Today I tried to make a comment on the file cuckoo clocks and was unable to because of this block. I ask that my block be taken away on these grounds. Thanks you - Alan support@decorationpoint.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanb23DP ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't delete SilverboltHey, hey, hey, hey! Silverbolt was the best articles, and what kind of article is that?! 75.142.152.104 ( talk) 05:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Microsoft Ants ProblemDear Barek. I don't like the fact that you keep deleting my updates to Microsoft Ants. You said you deleted it so not to promote Ants. However, the information on the page is out of date. The final sentence says that "As of January 31, 2006, Microsoft's Zone retired Ants because of the lack of players." However, this is not the whole truth as ants is not retired, and can still be played on Voobly. It is important to let people know that ants is not retired and can still be played online, so please put back this fact. This was not an advertisement, just an update that ants is not dead! I tried to reference this truth (not advertisement) but the webside is blacklisted. You can see for yourself that this is a fact and that I am just trying to let people know updated information about ants. games/view/21 --- I still cant type voobly dot com, but if you put that in with that extention, you will see that Microsoft ants is still very much online. This needs to be added online, or people who read this will assume that ants is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 ( talk) 04:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC) --- Nov. 14 2010 10:31 p.m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 ( talk) 04:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, it still should be stated that ants is not offline and can still be played, even if you don't list the website where to find it. Not doing so is giving the false impression that Ants is dead. And that is just not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 ( talk) 04:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Voobly is a reliable source, as I have been there and have played ants. But I can't use it because it is blacklisted. If it wasn't I would have put the source. It's not that I was advertising the website, but anyone who comes to this wiki page wants to know if ants is still around. The answer is yes. But this page makes it seem as though it isn't. This will give people the wrong impression. So this information needs to be updated and let people know that they can still play it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 ( talk) 04:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
-- If the website I mentioned were allowed, you could see that Ants is playable there!!! It shouldn't need to be "sourced" if the actual source of where it is shows that it is still playabale. That would be like posting that you can play MSN checkers from the MSN gaming zone, but unable to post that, unless you find an article were someone else that says the same thing instead of just showing where you can play it.. It makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 ( talk) 05:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC) It talks about the Microsoft Gaming Zone and MSN games, but that isn't considered advertisement. Neither should Voobly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 ( talk) 04:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Swami KrishnanandaTell that to user Drmies. That person is the one who is not acting in good faith. 67.49.74.73 ( talk) 05:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Prank CallAs to notability of Blackout / Michael Biggins - that has already been established argued, and blackout / michael biggins articles were merged years ago. As to credibility of first person to host a streaming prank call site, that has also been established, at least firmer than any other site can possibly prove. Wayback machine shows the site up with a realaudio 1.0 prank in 1995... is that not source enough? Can you show me ONE of these other sites with proof of a prank call "STREAMING" on the internet prior to Blackout.com? No. None exist. Not claiming the guy invented prank calls but it was the first streaming prank call site on the internet, and that is notable and useful information to the evolution of prank calls, and this has been established from multiple sources and can be seen in references and articles on Michael Biggins page. Not trying to battle you but this keeps getting vandalized and there are TONS of uncredible listings and useless info in this article that should be removed, why don't you work on that instead of removing credible noteworthy contributions to the evolution of prank calling? 74.72.154.158 ( talk) 17:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Very well, I will look at your reply there later, but please don;'t just 'revert' edits with established notability. I tried to include all sourced and proven material in a non promotional tone. I also tried to clean up and move things into better organization as this article has always been a mess of prank callers fighting for there names to be included. I did not remove anyone even though there are several things there that have NO established notability that should be removed. You may be correct on the formatting, and if so, please feel free to fix that, but Biggins / Blackout is established and should be included. It was included many ties and vandalized by KDK - pranknet, and several other prankster sites that have no notibility whatsoever other than there own words. Blackout and his site are noted in 3 printed outside sources (New Times, Harley Hahns Internet Yellow Pages, and .NET magazine (1998 issue 13) as well as many online sources. 74.72.154.158 ( talk) 18:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Vaporiser articleHello Barek. I have tried editing this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporiser. As a new contributor I'm not very familiar with the process, however I gather that my edits have been deleted by you. As my contribution is technically correct and ethically acceptable I would like to know why it has been deleted and how should I go about putting in contributions. Best regards Steeve Taylor promotion@inhalater.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.65.163 ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 November 2010
Thanks for your prompt feedback. I understand the importance of keeping wikipedia free of commercial clutter. It is a fact that we enjoy every time we use it. However the modifications I proposed are technically correct and are of value to people who are interested in the subjet. Yes, I am responsable of commercial promotion of a vaporiser and this places me in a position to be distrussed. Thus said, I beleive, these proposed modifications more appropriate. In radiation heating, the substance is subjected to radiant energy. The substance absorbs the energy radiated into it and its temperature rises. This energy can be provided by a superheated thermal mass placed around it, or from visible light source like the sun. Radiation vaporizers are rare, but capable of duplicating the performance of convection vaporizers. A pipe and a magnifying glass on a bright, sunny day can, with care and practice, act as an adequate radiation vaporizer using light. Our product is the only vaporiser on the market using radiation heating of a thermal mass. From this perspective, would it be appropriate to have an illustration of the patent or of the apparatus? Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.65.163 ( talk) 00:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thanks!Not edit warringBarek, I am not edit warring, nor am I referring to an old consensus. The recent consensus changed the introduction, and Peregrine981 and I are working on a discussion regarding the subject. However, the original wording by the new consensus listed 1981 as the "usual" end date without definite time frames. This is backed up by sources. Educatedlady decided on her own to change the phrase to read 1982. Most sources do not cite 1982 as the end date for Generation X. Very few do. I will request a revert to the edit as it does not violate the recent consensus. CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 22:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Drop mop, insert cork.User talk:77.102.254.186 Half Shadow 22:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Post removedI would like to contribute to this article and would like to know what I need to do to get my contribution approved. I am new to Wikipedia, though am a published author and respected authority on the subject of Lease Options in the UK. I can confirm that the content posted was not an infringement on copyright. I note the comment about removing the link which leads to a web site, the content of which is my personal property and which contains useful information about lease options, however, if this is not allowed, I apologise for the error. Many thanks for your consideration in this matter. Mark Jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkJacksonUK ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Howdy, could you help clear his name. He's had a 'suspected of being a sock' Template on his talkpage, since November 10th. Yet, his suspector hasn't 'yet' filed a SPI. GoodDay ( talk) 05:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
quick question, no blocking neededJust wondering if the one month block was really necessary on my IP account? Sandstein didn't even give me a chance to reply, which makes me think that he was trying to get me out of the way from this thing and how I said that I had a vested interest in getting my account unblocked. Is that really how blockings are supposed to work? Spartan123455 ( talk) 23:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Just wondering. Spartan123455 ( talk) 00:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC) How does one get Eastside Sun newspaper deletion undone?Hi. A bunch of self-appointed censors winnowed, then deleted, the article on a newspaper in Washington State called The Eastside Sun. How do we determine the identities of the people behind the screen names? This was a clearly orchestrated effort and it needs to be exposed in print. We've spoken with Rolling Stone and they want us to get the lowdown. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.26.80 ( talk) 22:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
RevdelAnything I should know about in that edit to my talk page you revdel'd? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
NotabilityHi -- I'm new to Wikipedia. Having said that, I'm puzzled by the inconsistency in interpretation and enforcement of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. For example, I've posted an entry about an individual who's having a substantial impact on literary criticism/education at the middle and secondary school level, with major national press citations of a decidedly non-trivial nature, yet you've flagged it for failing to meet Wikipedia's notability standard. In the meantime, I've come across a substantial number of Wikipedia entries for individuals whose impact is not nearly so significant, with supporting source material not nearly so substantial ... yet unburdened by citations suggesting the failure of said notability standard. Writing as one who comes from a fairly deep, albeit "traditional," editorial background, I must say that Wikipedia's "notability" standard, while sound in formulation, appears to be quite capricious in application. Please -- if you think something falls short of "notability," feel free to say how it falls short, feel free to offer suggested corrections/additions/modifications. That's the spirit of Wiki! But don't fall for the short cut. When you attack an article -- and, as did one "editor" this evening, its subject -- with a generic stamp of illegitimacy, you stifle speech, impede ideation, promote mediocrity. The internet's anonymity makes it easier than ever to raise unsubstantiated doubts about others -- and their work. I'm hoping your apparent devotion to Wikipedia means you hold yourself to a much higher standard. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomanywordstoolittletime ( talk • contribs) 04:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi -- I may be new to Wikipedia, but I am not new to Wiki. Nor am I new to the English language, nor to the culture in which Wikipedia exists. Neither, I suspect, are you. That's why I'm sorry you've chosen to respond to my comment with an attempt to delegitimize, first, via the "soapbox" characterization, then with sarcasm (echoing my use of the word "please"). This underscores my aside from said "soapbox" -- about the insidiousness of the internet's anonymity, which allows otherwise-thoughtful people to employ rhetorical feints they'd otherwise avoid. Putting that aside, however, here's my point: The game show "Let's Make a Deal" may be the biggest thing Bob Barker has ever done, but the two are not synonymous, and an article about one is not a substitute for an article about the other. Moreover, my attempt to fill a gap in Wikipedia's content base was intended to be initiative, rather than comprehensive. So there is no prima facie reason not to permit the article(s) in question to take shape over time. Based on what I've seen thus far, however, I conclude that further discussion about the "notability" of the subject will devolve into an unresolvable tug-of-war, one likely to become personal in nature and, frankly, unfair to the subject herself -- who, to the best of my knowledge, is entirely unaware of all of this. So I ask that you either permit the article to stand, untagged, or simply delete it altogether. At this point, I really don't care what you decide to do: All I ask is that you make a choice. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomanywordstoolittletime ( talk • contribs) 10:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
As Reagan once said to Carter, “There you go again.” Really, I don't care whether you choose to accuse me of “soapboxing” … or of crimes against humanity. What is lost on me is the relevancy of such characterizations with the subject at hand. (But, whatever … ) More arresting is your take of the Wikipedia editorial “process,” which ignores the circumstances, as I experienced them, in my first (and last) attempt at authoring a Wikipedia article. Specifically, you write, “The community discussion may have been to either merge or to retain independent articles - but rather than permit that discussion to take place, you chose to blank out the article entirely.” In fact, here's what happened: An “editor” or “moderator” simply deleted the article I submitted about the individual in question, and redirected the link to the 60second Recap article. No notice, no deliberation. How on earth does such an act encourage a “community discussion”? You go on to say, “I see you also chose to blank out the 60second Recap article which had no questions on the independent notability of that article.” Technically this is true, but it ignores the fact that the 60second Recap article had been emblazoned with a notability tag about the individual who was the subject of the related article. Bottom line: I deleted both articles because I take this kind of work seriously, but don't have time for this kind of silliness. And insofar as your take on the subject itself is concerned … well, I just don't have a dog in this fight. So why fight? Wikipedia's a treasure, and I'll be happy to tweak grammatical/logic/factual errors on the site as I find them; that kind of messing-about amounts to a mental vacation, at least for me. Like playing Sudoku. But when it comes to taking the time to contribute actual content, I'll leave all that to your team of precocious middle schoolers. Thanks. Toomanywordstoolittletime ( talk) 22:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
quick question about WP:NPAThanks for the WP:NPA citation, as I think civility is important in all walks of life. I have a question I hope you, as a moderator, can answer. It will help me understand the application of WP:NPA in the Wikipedia community. In your last post, you write: "My comments on your soapboxing were a direct reply to your comments on the subject." As you were the one who accused me of being on a soapbox in the first place (cf., your very initial response to my first query), I take it you mean that your accusation was an appropriate response to my query. Fair enough. I found your characterization offensive and felt it injected an ad hominem element to the discussion. But you're the moderator. Anyway, my question ... Your "soapbox" accusation was aimed at an individual -- me. My comment about "precocious middle schoolers" was aimed at no one individual, but at an entire class of individuals. My reading of WP:NPA is that it prohibits personal attacks, although it remains silent on the issue of pissy asides that are not aimed at any specific individual. One could certainly, and reasonably, contend that such characterizations nevertheless violate the the spirit of WP:NFA. But this still begs the question: How is it that your "soapbox" accusation aimed at a specific individual does not violate WP:NPA, while my "precocious middle schoolers" comment aimed at no one individual does violate WP:NPA? I look forward to your response. P.S. By the way, I think you're right: I did act precipitously when I removed my 60second Recap article. So, point taken. I've reposted the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomanywordstoolittletime ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you're 100% right, of course. I just wanted to shut it down in the most unambiguous manner, asserting a kind of moral, rather than legal, right (if, indeed, such a right exists). In any event, it is challenging to be caught in a situation where an anonymous individual, one who appears to have credentials as some senior Wikipedia moderator, starts calling you, in essence, a liar ... and in the most aggressive and obnoxious manner. It's even more challenging when you ask this person just what it is you're doing wrong, and he merely responds with series of Wikipedia policy citations that, insofar as you can tell, have no bearing on anything you've done. Anyway, thanks for all you're doing (seriously). Alas, I've found my brief Wikipedia experience to be so extraordinarily unpleasant that I don't think I can ever look at this website again, much less contribute to it in any way. Once again, that cloak of anonymity seems to empower to people to act so unfortunately. Oh, well. Over and out. Toomanywordstoolittletime ( talk) 16:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Barek -- The response I posted on my page to your comment: Yes, you are 100% correct, and as I commented on your talk page, I was seeking to assert moral, rather than legal, authority (if such a thing even exists.) It is unpleasant to be accused, repeatedly, by a senior Wikipedia moderator, of being a spammer -- and then, in essence, of being a liar -- without any apparent cause or explanation. Under such circumstances, there is nothing to do but to leave. And take my words with me. After all, if these are, indeed, the words of a "spammer," why should Wikipedia want them? Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Toomanywordstoolittletime ( talk) 16:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
AddendumJust a few moments ago, I logged on to find that I'd been banned permanently as a slammer. (I stepped outside the hotel where I'm staying to punch this out on my iPhone). Ironic, under the circumstances, don't you think? In any event, I've never encountered anything like this, anywhere on the internet. This is, hands down, the most vituperative online community I've ever seen (although, again, you seem quite reasonable). If my experience is anything close to the norm, well ... it can't possibly be -- can it? (toomanywordstoolittletime) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.217 ( talk) 17:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
Bernese Mountain Dog and Leonberger Infobox is not displaying properlyFor whatever reason, the infobox has a lot more information in it than it displays in the article. There is a technical problem. If you could help it would be appreciated. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 16:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Stan
That would a 'duh-moment.' Operator error. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 19:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Stan Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pagesYou reverted my edits in Amazon for Please "making test edits" when I wasn't. I was just seeing if an issue is popular enough to be included in the main page. remember, this was on the TALK PAGE so no vandalism was intended. please assume my good faith next time! 220.101.4.140 ( talk) 04:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Eastside SunI see that you deleted The Eastside Sun from Wikipedia. While your reasons are unimportant to me, I would like to read the article you found so offensive. Where can I find it in archives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.101.77 ( talk) 01:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you......for reverting the vandalism edits to my "thoughts" page. I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
John AmosThanks for taking the trouble to fix the edit history of Talk:John Amos. I did not fix it at the time because I felt sure that the anon would go back and vandalize it again, and I did not want to get into an edit war over it. ••• Life of Riley ( T– C) 02:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC) WP:Spam links about a dog organizationUnited Canine Association. Someone just added a link to this club/business to Leonberger and some other dog articles. I've never heard of this, and I have some experience as a dog-fancier wannabe over the last 20 years. It looks like the only attached club is the "Star of Texas" club. The breed standards are more bullshit than I've read in one place in a long time. As far as I can tell, this is a non-notable organization, which 'recognizes' and provides registration -- (rump registration, since Leonberger Club of American, for example, and I suppose the American Kennel Club and the FCI provide real registration for Leonbergers -- for every (400!) dog breed you've ever (or never) heard of. This just seems to me to be a relatively new commercial enterprise, and I would guess we are about to get links in 400 dog articles. I don't particularly care for the AKC, as I think all they care about are registry fees, too. But this thing has real spammy potential, and I am concerned. I'm not saying we should do anything about this, but maybe someone should think about it. You are one of the spam people, and I thought I'd call this to your attention. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 04:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC) Stan
FiberglassHi there, Politely and respectfully, why on earth are sending me a message related to fiberglass? I suspect you have the wrong person. Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.222.199 ( talk) 20:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
SudhaVijayauEverything required to make the article genuine has been added including the Wikipedia reliable links and external references. Just keep opposing without proper reasons, this way there won't be much more genuine articles written in Wikipedia as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.122.126 ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 12 December 2010
Picture removalHello Barek.
It is now gone. I couldn't find the reason for this in the modification page. How should I go about finding out why the modification has been rejected? Many thanks for your help Steve promotion@inhalater.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.188.230 ( talk) 22:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
AtargatisJust curious as to what criteria you defined the pop culture edits I made as spam. I've seen the reference and links on tons of other pages, and this was a link to a legit appearance in a comic that folks who read about Atargatis might be interested in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.85.151.70 ( talk) 22:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect assumptions on testingHi Barek, thanks for your message, but I'm not testing nor sandboxing. I'm legitimately adding a record to a white-label video service provider. Thank you for your patience; not everyone updates pages at lightening speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.225.7 ( talk) 21:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
DMacksI have a personel problem with this editor. Can you please help me? He seems to edite peoples contributions because it doesnt suit him. I find him abnoxiuos and far too big for his his own botts. Please look at what he changes and tell me if he deserves to be a wiki editor? 89.240.177.14 ( talk) 16:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Would you kindly take a look at this. I know nothing about the subject, but merely happened on it and to the redirect, and I think there is a better way to do it. Merry Christmas to you. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 17:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Stan
Merry ChristmasThe Utahraptor Talk/ Contribs has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas! Spread the WikiLove by adding {{subst:User:The Utahraptor/Christmas tree}} to any editor's talk page with a friendly message. -- The Utahraptor Talk/ Contribs 02:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the helpIt didn't need to be revdeled, as it's nowhere near accurate, but I appreciate the assistance. :-) Wonder if that was related to the Kirkland issues...-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 23:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Network MarketingDo you have a particular hate on for Network Marketing? It appears that you will consistently disallow any attempt at balanced presentation on this forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vejeestu ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 30 December 2010
The Big Bang TheoryTo Whom it may concern: I received one or more notes from you about attempts that I made at editing Wiki's Big Bang Theory main page. Any editing that I attempted was in no way meant to be antagonistic; in fact edits attempted by me were done so in the spirit of accuracy and good faith. Approximately several days ago, I entered the following statement on the page:
Revisiting the page, I was dismayed at how I wrote what I wrote. You will notice that I placed parentheses around the names of the characters and then around "guest star role as Sheldon Cooper's mother, Mary." That is not Laurie Metcalf's character's name. Therefore it should be:
I then realized that that was not quite accurate. I didn't want to leave the reader with the assumption that Sheldon's monther's last name was "Cooper". Perhaps she has a different last name for whatever reason. So, I finally revised it to reflect her identity most accurately and to look like this:
Furthermore, after watching a BBT episode, today, I learned that the address of the appartment building is 2311 Los Robles. I know that the show takes place in Pasadena. I don't think references to addresses are trivial; so I added text to reflect the above. It looked like this:
I titled it "Miscelaneous". You did not accept the edits that I made despite how well-intentioned they were. It is regrettable that my attempts at editing the BBT main page were regarded as vandalism. Ultimately, if you don't like the text that I added, well then, whatever. I was merely trying to make a significant and accurate contribution to the world - as significant as a modification of text on an internet encyclopedia can be. I won't lose sleep over it. Have a great day and good luck raising those millions. I enjoy reading wiki for what it's worth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.100.73 ( talk) 06:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. I forgot to sign and date my post of 1 minute ago. It is the same as it is now, John Doe, December 30, 2010. Happy New Year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.100.73 ( talk) 06:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
|