User talk:Barek/Archive 2014

This page is an archive of past discussions from User talk:Barek Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. My talk page archives  • 2007  • 2008  • 2009  • 2010  • 2011  • 2012  • 2013  • 2014  • 2015  • 2016  • 2017  • 2018  • 2019  • 2020  • 2021  • 2022  • 2023 Using Bengaluru Hi Barek, Wiki users are very limited compared to the actual residents of Bengaluru. Moreover, officially it is now Bengaluru. For centuries the city was called Bengaluru and in Kannada it is called so even till today, only during under British rule, the city name was anglicized. When cities all over India and the world are renamed without a fuss, we are only correcting the name of the city. Hope you understand and agree to the usage of Bengaluru. Regards, Siri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siriyaala (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia works on consensus, and at least for now, the consensus on the talk page of the article is to continue using the name Bangalore. Until that changes, that is what should continue to be used within the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC) pantone Hello, I do nout understand the problem. What is not correct to link to http://www.pantone-colours.com? The site shows all colors... Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.86.171.239 (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC) The site does not meet Wikipedia's guideline for inclusion as defined at WP:EL and WP:COPYVIO. Specifically, it violates copyrights by Pantone, in that it reproduces their intellectual property (ie: the Pantone Color Matching System) without their release of that material. We can legally reproduce a limited set (ie: their "color of the year"), but reproducing their entire pattern set (which they actively market and sell) is a copyright violation - and bypassing that legal issue by providing external links to sites that violate their copyright is a violation of our site policies. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Blacklist Your recent addition (diff) was near the top of my watchlist (excellent addition!). But you possibly meant "\bU"? Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Oops - thanks for pointing that out - should be fixed now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Huge Favor Barek, I need you to do for me a huge favor. I owe you big time. Someone is accusing me of being a sockpuppet again and I am not. I remember when I was though, you proved it by finding out the location of my sock and myself. Can you please do this again to prove I am being honest and that I am not a sockpuppet? It would really help me out. Leoesb1032 (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC) It wasn't me last time - I don't have access to the necessary technical tools to investigate; but the evidence this time looks extremely circumstantial. If a clerk forwards it for investigation, a different admin with the appropriate tools can check the technical logs. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Edit warring? Not really. I have made my opinion clear at the talk page already. Noone else does. Some people even urges me to use the talk page and when I tell them I already did they don't want to hear about it. Arms Jones (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Read WP:3RR. You have made, at this point, five reverts in less than 24 hours - a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Do it again, and you will be blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC) So how do you make others talk? This is a risk when a couple of other people just keep reverting an update without wanting to talk about it. Arms Jones (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC) There is no timeline - sit and wait for others to talk. Once consensus develops, if it supports your edit, then restore it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Payday loans in the United Kingdom Hi there, I posted the pic of the Speedy Cash shop, which is a payday loan chain in the UK. Can you explain in which way the photo is an advert? --Peabodybore (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC) The Wikipedia policy on advertising states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. Speedy Cash has branches across the UK, ie its not a local shop (see http://wwwuk.speedycash.com/payday-loan-store-locations/ ). The Speedy Cash shop in the pic illustrates how highstreet paydayloan shops in the UK look (ie red and green colour scheme, balloons, flags, adverts containing the word "free"). Are you saying that the UK payday loan article cannot contain a picture of an actual payday loan shop in the UK because that would be advertisement? I believe the pic and the caption does not contravene the Wikipedia policy on advertisement. How can I appeal against your removal of the pic?--Peabodybore (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC) The bigger issue was in the description of the image, which was a blatant advert of the company and their loan terms. The secondary issue was in the image itself not really illustrating anything in the text of the two articles to which it was added. Even if you strip down the image description to more neutral wording, all that really remains in the image is a building with the most readable pieces of text being nothing more than the company name and the text "cash loan". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Note: I've also replied at Talk:Payday loans in the United Kingdom#photo of high street payday loan shop, which is the better venue for continuing any content dispute discussion for the article - thanks for starting the discussion there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC) replied on article talk page--Peabodybore (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Seneca College's alumni Thanks for your help. Trying to understand the rules here. In your edits to Seneca College's alumni, you removed several names -- is it because they didn't have Seneca mentioned in their Wikipedia entries? Should any such entries have footnoted references? Most would be found at . A Google search of those names with Seneca as an additional search term would find references to their Seneca relationship. As well, you removed some honorary degree recipients. They all received degrees and a check of the Seneca website would show as much -- eg. . Again, should all those names have specific references added? Vitalloan Feb 20 2014 Vitalloan (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC) The rules on Wikipedia can get convoluted and difficult to follow, especially when new to the site. It doesn't help that some terms, as defined and used on Wikipedia, may differ somewhat from how those terms are used in some other areas outside of Wikipedia. In this case, per Wikipedia's article guideline for schools when listing school alumni (found at WP:SCH/AG#Alumni), there are two criteria that need to be met. First, the person must have a reference (either added to their listing on the school article, or in their own article) that verifies the person did indeed attend the school. This is related to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. And secondly, the person must be shown to meet Wikipedia's guideline on Notability (which can be read at WP:BIO). This guideline is itself also somewhat convoluted; but the "basic criteria" on that page condenses it: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Generally, if the person has an article about them which provides those third-party sources, it can be easy to identify them as meeting Wikipedia's threshold of being notable. But if they do not have their own article, then those third-party sources would need to be listed in the school article to demonstrate that they meet that threshold. Note also, that notability is not inherited; which means that a person can be associated with something that is notable but not meet the threshold of notability themselves (ie: a person may be in a notable band, but not themselves meet the threshold of being notable; or similarly could be part of a notable TV program, or notable research project, or other notable subject - but not themselves individually be notable. If you have any questions on this, or need clarification, or want assistance on formatting references, please feel free to ask. My internet access is somewhat sporadic lately; but I can usually respond within a day or two. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC) WHY DID U REMOVE MY EDIT? I don't get it. I made an edit on Death Battle that was contributing yet you removed it. I will add it again, and DO NOT REMOVE IT THIS TIME PLEASE!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.246.12 (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Making Money - Themes Section Barek, Could you please help me understand why it would not be appropriate to have a list of primary themes listed in the Making Money themes section? I attempted to add a listing of themes this afternoon, which you almost immediately removed. Just trying to get a better understanding here - as a list of basic themes addressed is often appropriate for Pratchett's novels (many of which address themes beyond the obvious from the title - eg, disrimination and fashion in Unseen Academicals). If we are comfortable presenting an entire plot summary - surely a basic list of themes is appropriate for an encyclopedia setting. Would very much appreciate hearing your thoughts, vs. just going back and forth on reversions. Thank you. 12.104.244.6 (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC) J Do you have a source for the list of themes? Or is it a self-derived list? I didn't see a reference listed, so a self-derived list would be the type of material that Wikipedia classifies as original research (see WP:NOR for the Wikipedia policy). The problem with an unsourced list of themes is that it becomes open for whatever each reader self-interprets and adds to the list. Also, several of the themes you added seemed to be so closely related as to border on being redundant. The existing theme section was sourced; if you have a third-party source for your addition, I can assist in the formatting to add that reference to the section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Content dispute Hi, I noticed that Chemtrail conspiracy theory was restricted over a content dispute. Can you please direct me to that conversation? I feel like I've walked into something that feels funny and I should find out what this dispute is over. Thank you.Johnvr4 (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC) The semi-protection was due to an IP that was inserting commentary repeatedly into the article to dispute statements in the article text, rather than using the article talk page. The goal of the semi-protection was to encourage them to use the talk page. Unfortunately, in their one subsequent edit to the talk page they chose to use personal attacks against other editors, then stopped editing entirely when they were warned over those personal attacks. The semi-protection automatically expires in a few days. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC) ICT edit should be reinstated. It's a real organization. The draft article has been submitted The Institute for Career Transitions (ICT) is a real organization, but relatively new (founded in 2013). It has a ton of citations, from NPR to MIT News, including Bloomberg, Harvard Business Review, and the Boston Globe, that are at the bottom of the draft article. The head of the organization is headed to a very visible meeting in DC, and this article will help other people attending that meeting understand what the organization is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JobSearchPro (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC) That's really irrelevant to the reason I removed the entry from ICT. As I explained on your talk page, disambiguation pages are navigational aids to help users locate their desired subject article from a list of existing Wikipedia content. Until the organization has their own article, they should not be listed on a disambiguation page. As to the draft article; it is currently written very much like an advertisement, so is unlikely to make it to article space in its current form. A fundamental re-write to make it encyclopedic is needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC) What? So, basically, we can't write anything about the NON-PROFIT organization or link to it or link to any of the articles about it (citations?). I am SO glad I've been contributing $$ (not much) to Wikipedia all these years! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JobSearchPro (talk • contribs) 23:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC) As I stated above, until such time as an article exists, it should not be listed in a disambiguation page - those are simply navigational aids to help readers locate existing articles. If your sole purpose of wanting to create the Wikipedia article is so that " help other people attending that meeting understand what the organization is about"[1], then you have the wrong idea of why Wikipedia exists. We are not a PR venue, but instead Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Attendees can use the organizations own website for the purpose you're suggesting. I see you have blanked out the advertising content of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Institute for Career Transitions. I do not know why the other editor blanked the external links which appear to be news articles; I have restored those. However, those links appear to be primarily about the founder or are merely trivial mentions about the organization; so I'm not certain there is enough material at this time to show the organization can meet Wikipedia's guideline on notability which can be found at WP:ORG. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Images at Sorcery (band) Hello, You have removed several photos from the Sorcery Band Wiki page stating that there was a copyright violation. These photos were taken by band members and their wives and are not commercial or professional photos. There is on poster called "The Music Of Sorcery" that was also removed. That is something we paid for in 1976 and still own. We are not trying to violate the rules. Thank you, loudguitar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loudguitar (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC) There are actually multiple issues here. First, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a photo album. The number of images greatly outbalanced the text, and appeared to provide no additional encyclopedic understanding of the subject. Next, the images appear to be taken from the band's website - and nothing on that site explicitly releases those images under a free licence that would be compatible with Wikipedia's image use policy; anyone can claim here to represent the band and to claim ownership of the images - so a statement on the website stating the images are either public domain or are under a free licence that is compatible with Wikipedia's requirements would be needed. Lastly, by your statements, you appear to have a likely conflict of interest in that you have a close association with the band. As a result, you should take extreme caution when editing the article, to avoid the impression that your edits are promotional in nature = it is important to follow Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 12th man (football) protected -> semi-protected? Thanks for the protected status on the 12th man (football) article. As the Seattle Seahawks fanbase (one of several known as the 12th man) are competing in the Super Bowl tomorrow, suggest you consider lowering to a semi-protected status. None of today's flareup involved Seahawks POV or content, instead focusing on long-standing TAMU-Iowa-Minnesota college issues. Many casual editors will likely engage both Super Bowl and related articles in the coming week (regardless of game outcome), contributing to WP:BRD. With a full protect, that cannot occur. OK with either decision, wanted to provide context from my perspective. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC) This is NOT a TAMU-Iowa-Minnesota college issue. It never was. This is Randolph Duke, an internet troll who, if you run a google search, is irresistibly drawn to any and all articles that might be somewhat complementary of Texas A&M and has made it his life's crusade to "correct" everyone about mean ol' Aggy. Secondly, EVERYONE on this article seems to get it wrong about A&M's 12th Man. The 12th Man at A&M does NOT refer to the fans in the stands. It refers to the STUDENT BODY. It always has. I was a member of the 12th Man while in school. The second I graduated, I became a former student...and no longer a member of the 12th Man. The 12th Man is represented on the field by a non-scholarship player who wears the number 12. On the football team, players on scholarship are not allowed to wear number 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.132.44.241 (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Please see WP:NPA: remember to discuss content, not contributors. I take no position on the content - my actions were solely to revert an obvious sock whose edits and username indicated their sole purpose was harass and attack another editor. I then protected the article due to the content dispute / edit war. All parties should discuss any content issues on the article talk page - being prepared to provide third-party reliable sources to support their position on the content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your work on this issue. The ad hominem attacks are getting a bit tiring. The efforts I have made to more fully develop the history of the term"12th Man" have all been supported by third party reliable documents, namely links to scans of the actual historical documents hosted by googlebooks. In the past, and again yesterday, I made attempts to discuss the matter on the article talk page as previously requested and in the comment section of my edits I requested the discussion of disagreements be moved the the article talk page. I appreciate Barek's work in ending the edit war, in handling the harassment and now to have the discussion moved to the article talk page. The Texas A&M has an entire wiki page to discuss their traditions that I have made no attempt to alter in any way. My interests are only in discussing the historical record on this subject and the reliable third-party sources (or lack thereof). I look forward to a rational discussion in the article talk page and, most likely, dispute resolution. Thanks again, Barek. Randolph Duke —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Nathan Deal Hello, You have removed my info that I posted on Nathan Deal's wiki page, I have provided reputable sources for this info and can provide more, I have reversed your edits due to this fact. While Gov. Deal is a living person, he is a politician who has been voted among the most 15 corrupt members of Congress by CREW in 2009 and he has continued the same type of corruption in Ga. while Governor. This behavior is pretty well documented and I only touched on a little of it and included sources, which, as I mentioned above, I can include others. I do not think that wikipedia should act as a campaign press release for the Governor's biography, but should report the truth so that curious people can see it. If the issue is with my sources, I will provide even more than I did the first time. Please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody special2u (talk • contribs) 23:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC) The sources you have provided do not state what you are claiming in your text. Per WP:BLP, the material was removed and should not be restored unless better sources are provided, or the text re-written to match the existing sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Jenns Hi, I looked at WP:EL and it seems mentioning the 1930s British actress is definitely not WP:LINKSPAM - "for the purpose of promoting a website or a product" - rather shows another formerly widely known person having that name. Is there some other way to mention her? Tertius51 (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC) I suggest you re-read WP:EL. The link fails WP:EL inclusion criteria, and would also fail as a reliable source (iMDB is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards). It is in no possible realistic interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines or policies an appropriate link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC) talk page posts I did not offend anyone, but you know if you are constantly roll back my questions (I was very angry), I repeat that do not know much English, but for Google translator translated as I do not answer--Гривусинус (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Your post to NawlinWiki in this post certainly came across as offensive (the post reads as you are calling him a scoundrel and calling him and/or others of being insolent). Perhaps that was not your intent and was the result of poor translation software. Whatever the cause, your subsequent re-posting was certainly disruptive and needs to stop. Please move on to more productive activities such as article improvement or discussion on article talk pages regarding content improvement. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Tzvi Hersh Hi, I wanted to engage you in intelligent conversation, what's your e-mail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzvi Hersh (talk • contribs) 07:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC) I rarely give out my email address. If a discussion is needed regarding Wikipedia content, the best place for that discussion is on the talk page of the relevant article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Alec Baldwin Hello, Barek. I notice you recently blocked an ip user (2.102.186.164) for edit warring and violation of 3rr on Alec Baldwin. He's doing the same now using an another ip (187.162.253.250). How do I know he is back with another ip? Edit summary matches. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC) I've already blocked the IP and semi-protected the article (you must've been typing while I did it). I have the page on my watch-list, but this should at least stop the disruptive edit warring. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Yeah, thanks a ton! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Telstra I added the complaints history table back in with detailed sources included in the table. New but motivated (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Amazon Eve It is not defamation if it is true. The DOB and court references are all correct, as well as the referenced documentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KCRos (talk • contribs) 22:47, 22 February 2014‎ Per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, any controversial claims must be supported by third party reliable sources - none of which were provided in your addition to the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Barek, re. this comment, I'm revdel'ing that entire discussion, per policy. In fact, it's borderline Oversight material. Firstly, there was contact information including phone numbers posted. Not okay. Secondly, people were posting potentially damaging unsourced material, with wild speculation that related to a recognized psychiatric disorder (don't make me link it) and very little to back it up. That there was a legal representative on the talk page, threats or not, should tip you off as to the seriousness of the matter. I've redacted it in its entirety but not suppressed it, and I'm on the edge of suppressing it - Alison ❤ 18:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Following that comment, I had also brought the issue up at WP:ANI#Amazon Eve so that others could review the situation. Feel free to comment on that thread. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks for that - I've followed up there, now. Also, it looks like JourdySilva (talk · contribs) has been socking :/ - Alison ❤ 20:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Known puppeteer's newest sock. Posting on your talkpage because you're the admin that showed up as most recently active on the blocklog. Anyway, Banclark is back yet again, this time as Banclark24. Posting here to deny this troll the recognition of the AIV. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC) I am not familiar with this user, and not sure what the issue is with their edits. If I was involved previously, I have forgotten and need a link to the original sock report. In the long run, the quickest way to get action is by reporting a problematic editors WP:AIV and/or WP:SOCK, and to provide diffs and relevant links in the report. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Blocked by someone else since then. Anyway, the problem was that this is the 24th reincarnation of a blocked user under the string "banclark" (See User:Banclark1, and the other 22 in between that one and Banclark24 all exist as well as far as I know), and they already were indeffed before then iirc, though I have forgotten the original username. Yeah, I usually report to AIV (I have more edits to AIV than my own talkpage XD), but this one's a persistent troll and vandal, so I was hoping to deny them recognition. Should've realized not everyone is familiar with them, even though it may look like by now most admins and vandalfighters are to some degree. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC) The good thing about AIV is that the board is automatically cleaned out by a bot after a user is blocked (eventually, sometimes the bot needs a restart); so any recognition gained is fleeting at best, and has no lasting recognition. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC) True enough, though the fact that their name is again listed in the summary of the edit in which they're removed from the board gives them another bit of recognition. In any case, the problem is solved for the moment (until he creates his 32nd account including the string "banclark"), though likely not for more than a few hours at most. This one is persistent. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC) And I found back the relevant threads. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Ban_proposal_-_FanforClarl and this quick CU. Now I'll stop filling up your talkpage with messages and go back to vandal-fighting and typo-fixing AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Thank you Thank you for helping with the edit war at Utahraptor, but, the other editor, JordanL462, appears to be too preoccupied with harassing another editor for reverting his efforts in tampering with that editor's userpage.--Mr Fink (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC) They appear to have stopped for now, and have been adequately warned. For now I'm hoping they will move on and discuss article content. Should they instead choose to continue their disruption, I would issue a block or support other admins issuing a block at that point. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Commenting on your Comment. I understand but it was very disrespectful for these folks for making such accusations. Reason i decided to get involved in wikipedia movement is for freedom of individuals such as yourself to monitor and make correction in the history of our times. I have donated considerable amount of funds to this movement, was just very disappointed. Sometimes it's ok for people like me to get shot even in the foot so people like you can sit behind the computer and monitor history and make correction. Thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llsilver (talk • contribs) 22:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC) RT There's no edit war, just you jumping to conclusions. If you want to know what's going on you are welcome to ask.Keith-264 (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Well, per WP:EW, Wikipedia defines an edit war as occuring "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." ... and looking at the article history[2], I can see three reverts by both parties with no discussion on a talk page. If you each disagree on the wording, you need to take it to the article talk page to resolve, rather than reverting each other repeatedly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC) As far as I knew, it was a humorous exchange; thanks for taking the trouble to explain.Keith-264 (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC) An RfC that you may be interested in... As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing! This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Harassment warning Excuse me but look at other damn pages on Wikipedia and you will say they fucking post music videos from YouTube so do not threaten me to scare me off from posting something you do not like when you are falsely claiming WP:EL when it does not say that YouTube links cannot be included so I suggest you read your own damn link and stop threatening me and unblock the page and apologize because you are in the wrong! In fact here it is read it and tell me where does it say that you cannot post official YouTube videos on WP:EL? Oops! It does not. You owe me an apology. (wholesale copy of WP:EL removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.24.163 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 March 2014‎ (UTC) You really need to stop edit warring over the link and discuss it on the article talk page, or take it to a relevant community discussion board (such as WP:ELN). From what I have seen, it did not appear appropriate; however, if you discuss it, either the community may agree with you, or I may also agree with you. As it stands, edit warring over the addition is never going to end well. The Wikipedia community is based on collaboration and consensus through discussion where needed - and you really need to calm down and discuss the content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC) DIRECTV I'm an official representative from DIRECTV and we would like our trademark corrected to all caps. This is our trademark and it is how it should be officially represented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddiemercado (talk • contribs) 17:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Please note that the article needs to follow Wikipedia's manual of style, which is to use sentence case - regardless of marketing preferences of the subject of the article. Also, if you are a representative of the company, please review Wikipedia's policy regarding conflicts of interest when editing articles to which you have a direct connection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Simon.161388 I was just marking all the articles that should not be listed in Wikipedia, just to make a point. My article was written all to wiki's standards, being netural, has one or two sources to back up the company. But my article continues to be placed into the deletion category These articles were marked for speedy deletion do not have sources to back them up. Also mentioned in your report written for self promotion. I should mention most of these are written in a form of advertisement. So you want to report I should report you as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon161388 (talk • contribs) This discussion belongs at WP:ANI#Possible pointy addition of speedy delete tags. Please make your comments on that thread rather than here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for helping clean up the vandalism on my userpage. It's appreciated. bobrayner (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC) 76.10.246.207 I'm inclined to increase the block on this IP to at least six months, based on the particularly nasty anti-Semitic/racist trolling that goes back to November. Acroterion (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Feel free to increase it - I hadn't looked at the older edits at the time; but looking now, you're right. The behavior indicates the same editor. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Will do, just wanted to clear it with you. Acroterion (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Wasabi Clan I'm sorry, but I think that Native American history is very important. My great-grandfather was the chief of the Wasabi Clan! I believe that, frankly, to delete my edit is an insult to my rich cultural heritage. If you don't know about the Wasabi Clan, just look it up. We have a very rich and important society. Please get back to me on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.112.192 (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC) First, your statement was entirely unsourced - your personal claims are not valid for supporting article content on Wikipedia. Secondly, even if true, it is 100% irrelevant to an article about the Wasabi plant. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Still, did you research the Wasabi Clan? Irrelevant. Even if true, it has no place in an article about the plant. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Okay, ok. It was irrelavent. but still, I think it would benefit you to research our rich heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.112.192 (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Deletions of my posts You recently deleted a few of my external link posts. I don't understand why these websites are not allowed because they are visitors guides and have alot of valuable information for people visiting each area. If these websites are not allowed then I do not understand why you are allowing www.Cometoohiopyle.com on the Ohiopyle Pennsylvania page as that site is not even completed and it is a similar site as discoverohiopyle.com Also on the Uniontown page there is a forum that should be disallowed if you don't allow the site uniontownonline.com and on the Pittsburgh Pa page visitpittsburgh.com also has ads on that site as well so oneburgh.com should be allowed The sites you removed that I posted and would like to be reconsidered are: http://www.discoverohiopyle.com - Ohiopyle Pennsylvania. http://www.Uniontownonline.com - Uniontown Pennsylvania and http://www.oneburgh.com - Pittsburgh Pennsylvania best regards, Ron Lovelace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronlovelace (talk • contribs) 04:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia has content policies and guidelines such as WP:EL, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and WP:USCITY#External links that apply to the the appropriateness of external links section for cities. The fact that other stuff exists which do not meet those guidelines and policies is not a reason to add still more stuff that fails to meet the inclusion criteria. Rather, it's an indication that no one has yet notices that other stuff. Thanks for pointing out the other links, I have cleaned up the Uniontown and Ohiopyle articles. The link in the Pittsburgh does meet the inclusion criteria as it's to the official Pittsburgh Convention & Visitors Bureau. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Deletion on Calculator Hi Barek. I'm new to editing wiki pages and was wondering if you can explain why you removed the reference I added to the Calculator page. I thought I was adding value by bring the page up to date to reference the evolution of the Calculator and the reference supported that addition to the main text, showing explicitly how it is possible to create a calculator that is available then to all users. Anyway, your feedback will help me understand how to do this properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Bartmess (talk • contribs) 20:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC) The short answer is that Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your website nor your web-based tools, although there are additional issues involved. Software based calculators are already better addressed in their own article at software calculator, which is already linked from the calculator article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Thought you'd be amused [3] At 18:23, "UFO Phil" asks people to remove Rick Still's name from the Wikipedia article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC) There's very little mention yet of Rick Still on the article so doesn't matter (only remains as an associated act, which both the character and actor have acknowledged) - so I don't see much further impact from this, although from what you say was said in it, that could explain why editors have recently become interested in the article again. As to the audio file, it prattled on and I lost interest, so I didn't listen to much of it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC) rdoroshenko Why did you delete my links? It was not some kind of promotional content, but the work I did after research (and Wikipedia is among the sources I got info from). rdoroshenko (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC) The link fails inclusion criteria defined at WP:EL; and based upon your comments, you appear to have a conflict of interest in promoting the link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC) How to cite a TV episode? Hi, How you mentioned to cite a specific source for my Wiki entry. In this case, the fact is from the episode of Gilligan's Island itself. How do I cite the episode properly? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvincentsong (talk • contribs) 04:57, 28 March 2014‎ Something as out-of-place as what you describe would be expected to be documented somewhere; particularly for a TV show as well known as Gilligan's Island. I've searched TV show websites, blooper sites, and even generic Google searches, yet can find no mention of what you describe in your edit. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC) I believe Jvincentsong's edits are referring to character actor Vito Scotti. I glanced at the first page of Google hits (using "Boris Balinkoff" as the search term) for some WP:IRS for Mr. Scotti's role and found some sources for this role but was unsuccessful in finding a reliable source. I do not have time at the moment to delve any further, just wanted to say that it looks like Jvincentsong's content might be credible. Shearonink (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC) I'm not disputing that there was a character named "Boris Balinkoff" - but look what Jvincentsong is claiming the character states. He says that Boris calls Gilligan by the name "Robin", and Gilligan responds and follows him. I haven't been able to find any confirmation of that claim anywhere. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Hi I tried adding information to the page for Gilligan's Island. However, my information was taken out because it did not have a third party source. However, I cited the TV show episode to support my claim. My claim is that Gilligan's first name could be Robin because Gilligan was hypnotized and called Robin in the episode Ring Around Gilligan. You can view the episode for free here: http://www.tubeplus.me/player/954573/Gilligan's_Island/season_3/episode_9/Ring_Around_Gilligan/%22 Isn't the direct TV episode good enough as a first rate source because it is a direct content source? To verify my claim, readers just need to watch the episode. Thanks! (Jvincentsong2 (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)) Multiple third party sources repeatedly state that Gilligan is never called by a first name in any episode. Given how well known and well watched the series, it's very unlikely that you have discovered something that has gone un-noticed for over 45 years. Thank you for providing a link - I did watch it, and it makes clear that Gilligan is not being called "Robin" as you claim.- no question about it. Dr. Balinkoff calls for "Robot Gilligan", and in fact he refers to everyone who is under the influence of his ring as a robot. I am guessing his heavy accent caused you some confusion, re-watch the episode and it will be clear that Gilligan is not called "Robin" at any point in the episode. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Mr. CAP I obviously made a mistake in creating the Mr. CAP article, and I see it has been deleted a few times. Can you please help me get it right? Greerbro (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC) There have been multiple issues with creating the page in the past. Your submittal was deleted because it was a copyright violation that was copied from http://www.houstonchronicle.com/entertainment/music/article/Mr-CAP-returns-to-his-musical-roots-5383713.php In the past, other users who have created the page have struggled to meet Wikipedia's threshold of notability, the relevant requirements to meet that threashold can be reviewed at WP:MUSICBIO. For assistance in creating the article, there is an outline with general advice for creating a new article at WP:Your first article. If you would like to request specific guidance or assistance, I suggest posting a request at WP:Teahouse. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. Mr. CAP is a notable and relevant artist, I guess we haven't figured out how to properly create his Wikipedia article. Greerbro (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Jenns Why is it a DAB, if it says... "This article about a biologist from the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Categories: American biologist stubs American biologists"  ? Tertius51 (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC) It says that because you removed the {{Disambiguation}} tag in January. I missed that, and will revert further to the correct version of the page now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC) For the record, it was this guy. Tertius51 (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Bundy standiff Your page protection of Bundy standoff did not include the PP template. Also, 10 days of full protection for IP edit wars on a recent/breaking news story seems excessive. Please consider reducing the protection time and allow autoconfirmed users to edit or allow only reviewed edits to go live. --DHeyward (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC) I came here to say much the same thing. In nearly ten years of editing WP, this is the first time I have ever seen an article locked from even registered users. I have not been very active on WP for the last few years so I assume I missed the policy decision that allows for this. Could you refer me to a rule or guideline discussing this? (I realize that your page notes you are busy IRL, but this only makes a 10-day blanket lock seem all the more excessive, if you are unavailable to review your own decision.) I strongly object to this action. This should be a normal semi-protect. We already have a fairly adequate system for dealing with edit wars among registered users, one which has taken us many years to develop. Total page locking was never a part of that system or it's philosophy. Eaglizard (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC) First time you've seen an article locked for registered users? And you've been here for 10 years? That is extremely doubtful. It is hard to assume good faith with such hyperbole. 173.153.4.250 (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Assuming good faith is your problem, not mine. (I suggest a brief perusal of my edit history before you make unwarranted assumptions.) The only case I can remember where I was unable to edit a contentious article was due to legal / BLP issues. I cannot think of another. Also, as an unregistered editor, your opinion seems irrelevant to a discussion of how registered users should be treated. Eaglizard (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC) When registered users are the problem, then IPs are the only ones that can be trusted. Registering isn't an excuse to break the rules. There was a lot of rule breaking by POV pushers on that page that was obvious when they needed to remove quoted material to put up statements that were clearly not backed by the sources used. Tons of pages are full protected and have been going back to the beginning of protection. 173.153.4.250 (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC) The editors adding information that was clearly not in a source and attributing to that source in place of direct quotes from the source were registered users, so blocking IPs would not solve that problem. There were many registered users who were clearly violating most of the content rules. 173.153.4.250 (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC) The page was full protected due to a content dispute resulting in edit warring. I would be happy to remove the full protection earlier than currently set if/when someone can show where on the talk page consensus one way or the other has been reached. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Again, this does not follow my understanding of how moderation is supposed to work on Wikipedia. IIRC, when page locking was introduced, we decided it should almost always only apply to IP editors, since registered editors could be sanctioned by existing methods. Can you please point me to the guidelines (or rules) that cover this? I'm not denying such pages exist, as I do not know, but I would like to see them for myself. As I have always done it, consensus is reached by editing the article. WP:3RR is still in effect, is it not? That and IP editor blocking have generally been sufficient in the past. Eaglizard (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC) That is just not true. Protection was to stop wars in general, and full protection was there from the beginning. Blocks are not always warranted. Sock puppetry is quite common with registered accounts since the beginning. Your statement would never have been what was adopted. 173.153.4.250 (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC) The page protection was done per WP:PP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC) NB: I just want to briefly clarify my rationale: I have been involved in a number of similarly contested articles (actually, some that are at least 10x as contested, such as Palestine & the Thousand and One Edit Wars related to that subject). In my experience, the one thing that breaks an edit-war stalemate better than anything is when uninvolved, experienced editors come along and edit the article the way it should be edited, after justifying their edits on the talk page. Discussion itself rarely results in consensus, in my experience; consensus almost always comes about AFTER someone has BOLDly made good, consensus-building edits to the article first. Your action, of course, completely prevents us uninvolved and more-or-less neutral 'third party' editors from genuinely helping out, without improving on the far less-invasive principles of 3RR and partial page protection. (This method was developed specifically for the reasons I outline here, because it is the least-invasive way we could find that actually seemed to end edit wars. Eaglizard (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Edit warring/content dispute was small and limited to a set of editors. Feel free to block the editors that continue to engage in edit warring, however the protection, length and lack of a template explaining the page protection. Please undo the page protection which affects much more than the edit warring material and prevents all edits. That is far more disruptive than the edit war and this is not the purpose of page protection for extended periods. The lack of the proper template indicating protection makes it appear as if page protection is not an activity regularly performed. --DHeyward (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC) The lack of a template is a technicality, easily resolved, and not a reason to revert protection in itself. Page protection was a direct result of the content dispute. I am not seeing a thread addressing the disputed content on the talk page - a more productive resolution would be to attempt to establish talk page consensus to resolve the issue that resulted in the page protection. As yet, if such a discussion has been started on the talk page, I seem to have missed it; please point out the discussion if it exists. As I said, I am more than happy to remove the page protection early if consensus exists on the disputed content. As only one edit request has been posted to the talk page in the past 30+ hours, there does not appear to be significant collateral damage from the page protection at this time. If you feel that I have abused my use of the page protection tool, please feel free to bring up your concerns at WP:ANI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC) No, this was an edit war between 2 editors, one of which is an IP. As per most 2 party edit wars, there is no consensus to work out. Blocking the 2 editors would have removed the conflict and edit war and left the article available for thousands of editors to build consensus. Semi-protection would have accomplished the same as locking in a particular version. The reason you don't see consensus building is precisely because this is a 2 party affair and picking a side for ten days means there is no reason for the warring parties to participate. --DHeyward (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC) In any content dispute, there is always room to develop a consensus - either through the involved parties or via other editors voicing positions on the talk page. Semi-protection would have been picking a side in the dispute, as only the IP would be prevented from editing. The best way to remove the page protection early is to discuss the dispute on the article talk page. When consensus is reached, it serves to prevent continued disruption in the future (as editors repeatedly going against consensus can be blocked for disruption). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC) IP editors are always invited to create an account. As it stands, the IP editor has no reason for consensus and editors unrelated to the revert war are prevented from editing because 3RR wasn't enforced. --DHeyward (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Page protection was inline with WP:PP#Content disputes. You could always resolve the issue by starting the discussion yourself on the article talk page and building consensus. You may not be an involved party, but you obviously have an interest in its resolution. It's certainly not your responsibility to resolve, but gaining consensus is the quickest solution. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Consensus from whom about what? It's a two party dispute. My first inclination is that Youtube is not a reliable source but it is not clear that there is enough outside interest to generate "consensus" whence the reason why the revert war was extremely limited in scope. Disruption was through reverts, not content. --DHeyward (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC) As you appear unwilling to contain yourself to a single forum and refuse to attempt to resolve the issue on the article talk page by attempting to reach consensus on the article talk page, I have elected to choose a single forum for my further responses. Please use WP:ANI#Page protection at Bundy standoff. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Barek, I apologize if my comments seemed to imply some form of abuse on your part. I meant no such thing. I merely feel that you don't understand the power and importance of the partial protection + 3RR strategy. I feel it would have been more effective in this case. You may disagree, I am not attempting to be the boss of you. Just trying to share some hard-earned insights I happened to have picked up over the last ten years or so. This would only have been deserving of ANI in my mind had you failed to respond reasonably to my inquiries; I had no intention of making that big of a case of it. But since you have, I will direct any further comments on the situation at hand thereto. My intent here is only to clarify that I was in no way accusing you of abuse of anything. Eaglizard (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your post. I also have a request (for you or anyone who reads this). I am travelling again for work, and may not have PC access again until Thursday or Friday this week. And, unfortunately, my phone seems to hate editing ANI. Can someone post over there that I am fine with any admin implementing and logging of general sanctions from that ANI thread - no need to await further input from me, nor to drag out further due to my internet access issues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC) And to all; yes, I see the irony in my not being able to edit ANI, after I had requested discussion to be centralized on that forum. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Lol :) Ok, so I just posted a fairly strong opinion at ANI that your protection was 'premature and inappropriate', and I just want to reiterate the point above: I am (deliberately) completely unaware of any other action you have ever taken as admin or editor. My comments are not at all directed at you, only at this particular decision. I think you made a mistake, and I have no problems with that; I, myself, am also a human being, and reserve the right to make mistakes. Even to be mistaken when calling something a mistake. :) Anyways, your further responses have been lucid and friendly and quite on-point. You seem like a fair enough holder of The Bit to me. Thanks for all your work! Eaglizard (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC) NB: I transferred your comment as requested. I also requested the protection be removed at WP:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level, since you don't say when you'll be back. Eaglizard (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC) No worries. It takes a humble admin and a good admin to trust other admins. That's an unfortunately rare occurence. I hope you can understand my position and not take it as a personal attack. --DHeyward (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Thanks for posting. No problem, I understand. I see general sanctions are now in place, which provides more leeway for addressing potential future disruptions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Userboxes/edits Your userbox links to the wrong page: http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=GKFX&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia not https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=GKFX&project=en.wikipedia for me. There is a redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GKFX (talk • contribs) 16:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC) I was hoping no one would notice until I had a chance to fix it (has been broke for a while now, I kept putting it off to work on other things). I'll work on it later today to get the link updated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC) It should be updated now - sorry about the inconvenience. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC) WIFI ISP WIFI ISP is a distinct category of ISP based upon soly interconected ISP Nodes. if you feel this is not accurate please provide evedence other than you feel it is inappropriate thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickCarlough (talk • contribs) 06:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC) What you were adding was nothing more than an advertisement for a specific platform, and was being appropriately removed on those grounds. Thank you for re-writing the material; however, the "reference" you continue to add fails to meet Wikipedia's guideline to be a reliable source, as well as failing Wikipedia's external links guideline. I have removed the link again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Sears Catalog Homes Please explain the removal of the links from the page. It appeared to be indiscriminate and ignored the additional information provided on those pages that can't be included within the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.188.24 (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a linkfarm nor an internet directory. The links fail inclusion criteria of WP:EL as well as WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC) That doesn't explain why those links were removed. Arbitrarily removing links and then hiding behind the policies provides no guidance on how you decided which links should stay and which should go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.188.24 (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC) You are making an assumption that it was arbitrary, it was not. Each link was reviewed, and those that failed Wikipedia inclusion guidelines were removed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC) I'm very familiar with the content on all of the linked resources having added many of them myself. Nothing is more annoying than having someone with little or no background on a topic come in and arbitrarily remove links and then when questioned, claim that the links failed to meet the policies of Wikipedia. What knowledge do you have of the particular topic to be able to assess whether the particular resource pages met or failed to meet the stated policies? You removed links to several key resource pages including a paper that includes some original research on Sears Catalog homes while leaving at least one linked site that is of questionable value and includes content that isn't accurate. Of course, if you have limited knowledge on the topic, you won't be able to assess the validity or value of those particular sites. Apparently, that's not an obstacle for some users from arbitrarily editing out content that they've decided doesn't fit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.98.35 (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Request to be Unblocked I use this site a lot and need it to study. My main reason is that I contribute to the Video-game wikis and need that to keep them updated. I AM a gamer and play Minecraft and edit its wiki(unable to now, though). Thanks for looking at this, I hope you have a good day/night. Xcreeper5 (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC) P.S., can you unblock my IP too? No, you were appropriately blocked for repeated persistent vandalism. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Blocked vandals/socks (of Sharry99?) Two more to block, per duck test, in addition to Creeper8: Xcreeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Minecraft902 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thomas.W talk 17:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC) I would check the CluebotIII false positive page. The content of some false positives are very inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.137.100.27 (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Spam Link? How is a link to a very informative website (www.waynesville-nc.com) considered spam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joomple (talk • contribs) 19:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia is not an internet directory, links added to articles must follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For US cities, the most relevant guideline can be found at WP:USCITY#External links, which specifically states: "A link to some of the official websites should be provided here, such as the official city government, or the convention and visitors bureau." Additional information about the appropriate use of external links on Wikipedia can be found at WP:External links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC) The admin kitty It is true that being an admin is serious biznis, but can you tell me how to create an effective user page? ( please don't warn/block me for asking, I really don't know!) Spyro571 (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Chicago Thanks for stepping in. Haven't been on WP that long (only really since January, although I did one edit a few years ago), and wasn't sure how to proceed with someone who kept re-adding content that at least 3 other editors reverted. Being new to this, is there something I should have done differently? Or should I have contacted an admin? Thanks for any direction you can give. Onel5969 (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC) The user should be warned about WP:NPOV, I can take care of that. Also, be careful not to step over WP:3RR yourself. Worst case, if disruption continues, you can post the issue at WP:ANI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks. Sorry about the 3RR rule. What should I do, in a situation such as this, when I've reverted it twice, and other editors have reverted it multiple times, and yet the other person simply continues to re-enter the info? I want to follow the established protocol. My initial revert told him it was uncited, and non-neutral, but he simply re-entered the same information. Same thing when another editor told him it was redundant info included elsewhere in the article. (and thanks for taking care of the NPOV warning) Onel5969 (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC) If another user breaks WP:3RR, you can submit a report to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You can also start a discussion about the content on the article talk page, giving the other user an opportunity to reply to concerns about their edits. I'm hoping that now that I've warned the user on their user talk page, they'll either recognize the problem with their edits and either improve the existing text or at least take to the article talk page to discuss the edits. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Again, thanks. Will follow this protocol from this point forward. Onel5969 (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Willis Tower on tourism page Barek, I don't understand why you deleted my posting in the tourist section of Chicago. I am from Chicago originally (lived there 29 years). I mentioned the Willis Tower and the cool glass balcony as a tourist destination for people to read. It's to help tourists find something to do. What I wrote is factual and not biased in any way. Can you tell me how I can word my posting to your liking so its not deleted? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lester12483 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC) @Lester12483: Hi. First, Barek didn't delete your post... 4 other editors have been deleting that same post, and giving their reasons each time it's deleted. There are basically 3 problems with your post. First, it's not referenced; when you add information to Wikipedia, always try to provide the source where you got that information, and it should be a reliable source (e.g. a reputable newspaper or book, rather than some fly-by-night blog). You can get information on using citations at WP:CITE. Second, it's not neutral. You use fluff phrases like "spectacular"... you can get information on this type of verbiage at WP:PEACOCK. Third, and this will get this entry deleted regardless of the other two facts, it's redundant. The information you're attempting to include is already in the article, in the section about architecture. I hope this helps. One last thing, I noticed you once again added the edit. Please self-revert it, or I'll ask another editor to do it. (Barek - Sorry I responded on your page, I thought the post was on Chicago's talk page - I would have deleted, but know you're not supposed to do that on another editor's talk page) Onel5969 (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC) thanks Thanks for the cleanup. I pissed off the wrong IP I guess :) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Sock troubles MonteDaCunca (talk · contribs) is obviously a sock of banned user PennySeven (talk · contribs). I'm tagging and reverting his disruptive comments. LK (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Civility Barnstar For showing remarkable forbearance in the face of extreme provocations. Thanks! We need more admins like you. -- LK (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar Did I ever give you a barnstar for reverting vandalism on my user pages? You did that several times already, sometimes when I was offline, sometimes when you beat me to the revert. No good deed should ever go without reward, whether it be today or tomorrow or in a thousand years... but I don't think either of us would still be around in 1000 years unless we were preserved the same way the Egyptians preserved their pharaohs. But if Wikipedia is still around 1000 years from now, I hope this barnstar is too! Again, thanks for helping me chase the vandals out of my userspace. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 23:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC) SPI case Hi, Barek. I opened an SPI case involving accounts where you were the initial blocking admin. After I searched the SPI archives and found none of the accounts connected, it seemed a logical next step (after consultation on IRC #wikipedia-en-spi). Some of the evidence involved edits to your talk page. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 19:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Page deletion query Hello there.. Was just wondering why the page on Thomas Bell was deleted.. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_James_Ball Cheers :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.19.156 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Prior to deletion, there was a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas James Ball where the consensus was that the subject did not at the time, meet Wikipedia's thresholds notability. Some of the issues brought up in that discussion included WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:COATRACK. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC) A cookie for you! Wow, my ego's hurt ;) Nicely stated on TheLittleDuke, you are clearly much more eloquent than me. Lixxx235 (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC) About removing external links from Defiance (TV series) How is it inappropriate to add links to pages about the Defiance Languages in the page dedicated to Defiance? Respectfully. Salocyne (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC) (talk page stalker) SalocinKlaus WP:ELNO is the answer #1 and #12 in particular. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC) The wiki featured there is unique, it is the only respectable and serious source for the Defiance languages besides David Peterson himself! Also anyone is welcome to feature an article about the languages but I don't see that happening :/  It meets the criteria! Salocyne (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Also you removed the Languages Defiance Wiki but left the Defiance Wiki there!? They are part of the same thing! And please, do not insult because I've never insulted you. Salocyne (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Did I insult you? I liked you directly to the policy for why your link was deleted. This is not the official website for the show, and the site does not meet the standards for a WP:RS as it is entirely user generated content. There are wikis for star wars, game of thrones, star trek, and almost every other show out there, and our articles do not link to them. In any case I deleted nor left nothing, I am just informing you as to why something happened. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC) You insulted me when you called me "stalker", you don't know me, so please don't label me. Yes, that might be true, but you left the Defiance Wiki link intact, and this is the same. Either it all goes or it all stays, you see what I mean? And by the way... isn't this Wikipedia user generated? Or do robots write the articles? I edit on both the Defiance Wiki and the Defiance Languages Wiki and I can tell you I put my best there. Salocyne (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Gaijin42 called themself a "talk page stalker" (also known as a "talk page watcher"). The term is linked to a page that shows how that term is defined on Wikipedia. As I mention in the header-block of this page, I welcome the assistance of talk page stalkers in replying to posts on this page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC) In addition to WP:ELNO #1 and #12 concerns mentioned above; the primary reason for the removal was that it falls under WP:ELPOINTS #4. Note, an argument could be made that the main Wiki link also fails WP:ELNO #1, #11 and #12 - however, I have not taken that stance myself at this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC) First off, I would like to apologize to Gaijin42, I didn't know, I thought you were branding me something, I'm not very familiar with the editing and talks. Thanks for you answers. And to Barek: I think this decision is very arbitrary of you. I don't understand what makes one wiki qualify over the other when they are both the (1)same kind of wiki, (2)run by the same people/admins and (3)about the same topic. Sure, one is more general and about the show, the other is more specialized and about the languages, but I was sure Wikipedia was a place of knowledge and you could certainly use some knowledge about the languages. Salocyne (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Feel free to bring the link up for discussion at Wikipedia's External Links Noticeboard. That can get involvement of additional editors to see if consensus supports adding the link to the article. I don't see either link meeting the threshold of inclusion as outlined at WP:EL, although I had only been removing the one link myself. You can make your case at the noticeboard to try to build community consensus. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)SalocinKlaus On the issue of confusion over the insult, apology accepted in full. Wikipedia has many jargons and policies that are unfamiliar to new editors - I completely understand your confusion. The wiki is a place of knowledge, but primarily that knowledge is for WP:Verifiable knowledge, contained in Reliable Sources. The defiance wiki doesn't really qualify, and its WP:FANCRUFT to boot (something which a great many of our articles suffer from). However, even on the star trek, start wars, or other major sci-fi articles, you will generally not find links to external fan wikis, particularly not to sub articles on particular topics. (The Star Wars article for example links only to the high level wookieepedia top page, and even dedicated sub articles Jedi etc do not link to the relevant pages of the external wiki). However, most importantly, regardless of if the link is or is not appropriate - the process by which we would decide is WP:CONsensus, not WP:EDITWARing. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC) HARIBO jingle composer addition Hi, I have never contributed to WIKI before. I am the composer and producer of the HARIBO jingle. It is used in the UK, USA and Australia. My name is Stephen Lee Vickers - composer and producer (UK) www.steveleevickers.com. (Under construction) Associate member of the PRS. Please feel free to add this information to the HARIBO page. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.198.182 (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC) What is needed are third party reliable sources that mention that information. For that matter, some source that indicates why that information would be encyclopedic and not a random bit of trivia would also be beneficial. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Reference/Catholic High I'm trying to cite some information for the Catholic High page. How does one do that? Also, are you a Catholic High graduate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.8.81 (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC) The page WP:Citing sources can provide information on how to cite sources. You can also get assistance for specific questions at WP:Help Desk, or more general editing questions at WP:Teahouse. Note: there was an edit war going on several months ago related to what appears to be very similar material to what you are adding. That edit war reesulted in the page being semi-protected to prevent the continued disruption. To avoid that issue, you may want to draft your changes in a sandbox area such as User talk:173.160.8.81/sandbox (or if your IP is known to change, you can create a user account and create a sandbox under that username, so that it's easy to find each time your IP changes). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Speedy deletion declined: Clever Girl (album) Hello Barek. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Clever Girl (album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The band exists, so A9 is not applicable. Might fail WP:NALBUMS though. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Ah, right - my mistake; I had tagged a small set of album articles that all should have gone through prod or AfD. Looks like all four were declined for speedy, so I'll correct that today. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC) No Drum And Bass In The Jazz Room Since there's an article about the band, if there's insufficient content/sources/whatever to merit an article about the album, it should be redirected to the band's page, rather than deleted (except perhaps in unthinkably bizarre cases where the band's article doesn't mention the album?), so readers can find what information we have on the subject. WilyD 16:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC) I have no objection to redirecting - although for various reasons I suspect it will still come to an RfC or AfD eventually. Still, I'll setup the redirect later today when I get back online. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC) It's possible, although with the extremely limited content, a merger would probably be fine and not gather any objections. WilyD 16:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Message!! You sent me a message saying that an edit I made to a Windows XP page was not constructive. I never have and never will make any edits to pages about Windows XP about which I know very little. In fact, I have made no edits to any Wikipedia page to date. I would kindly ask you to check your facts and remove this criticism from any profile or details regarding me - I may well want to edit something in future and I don't want to be prevented from doing so because you have me confused with another user. Thanks Diane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.120.169 (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC) The warning you mentioned appears to be on page User talk:90.203.120.169, and is from May 2009. Because ISPs frequently change IP assignments, it's possible for you to receive a notice from a prior user of that IP address. When I place notices on an IP talk page, I currently include a mention that in order to avoid irrelevant notices meant for prior users of an IP, the receiver of the notice may wish to create an account. But the notice on your IP talk page is over five years old, prior to my including that mention. As a courtesy, due to the age of the notice, I'll go ahead and blank your userpage. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Spyro I'm so sorry I overturned your PP on Spyro (series). I've only just noticed that you applied protection 10 mins before I did. Please feel free to revert to your level (though in my favour I'd claim that both parties are as bad as one another so full prot may be better). Best wishes,  —SMALLJIM  00:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC) No problem - I was about to post on the talk page with a link to WP:DR and WP:ELN. It appears that the link has been disputed for at least a year - so gaining input from additional parties from outside the talk page is likely going to be needed to resolve the issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Your addition there may help a lot. Thanks!  —SMALLJIM  00:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Request for help with spam on Spyro (series) Hello, I was wondering if you could please help me stop the spammer on the Spyro (series) page. I am completely lost as to what to do at this point and do not want to enter another edit war. You protected the page on June 30, and we were asked to "work it out on the talk page." However, despite failing to gather a consensus in favor of the link, User:75.70.218.39 is still reverting edits to remove it from the page and is ignoring warnings. I have gotten a second opinion in favor of removing this link here. Can the protection on the page be increased, the user blocked, and/or the link blacklisted? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfstormy (talk • contribs) 04:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Vpal I am not trying to promote it. instead, I am afraid it might be a scam. while XRP is under 1USD, VBC is 81USD. Seems much popular than XRP. I just want people to think about it whether it is a scam since the people behind it are not identified yet. There is no point to delete it so quickly. Jackzhp (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC) The article does nothing more than establish that the company exists - Wikipedia is not a business listing, and simply listing a company with no established notability would fall into the realm of advertising for the company. If you want to create the article, you will need third party reliable sources. Please see WP:CORP for further guidance on establishing notability. If you want time to develop the article, I suggest drafting it in your user space (ie: User:Jackzhp/VPal), or use the WP:DRAFTS process until the article can stand on its own in main article space. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC) authbind what is the reason you want to remove privbind? No explanation at all. Seems to me you act like a dictator. enjoy it, I give up putting my energy on this. Jackzhp (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC) You added a redlink to a non-existing article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC) REVERSIONS Any particular reason you are reverting the wiklinks to the new page I created? Should the founder not be linked to their new pages??? CombatThisss (talk) The article you are creating was turned into a redirect to the founder's article as a result of a prior AfD which found the company had no notability outside of the founder himself. If you with to recreate that article, I suggest that you start a discussion to establish if consensus has changed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC) City of Tuscola Could you give more explanation as to why my edit was deleted for the city of Tuscola page? I noticed the history section was lacking content and well as up to date information on the town in general and I wanted to update with more accurate info. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.33.198.34 (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC) There were a couple issues involved. First, the wording that you added was in a promotional tone, sounding like it was written by either a tourism bureau or a chamber of commerce. Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view, without the promotional puffery. Also, the existing text provided references identifying a source, while the new text was unsourced. For historical event dates, a source should be provided per our reliable sourcing guideline (see WP:CITE for how to include references). I have also, just now, added a welcome message to the top of your IP talk page at User talk:12.33.198.34. That message contains some additional links to resources that can assist you in editing Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Edible Arrangements Changes Deleted Hi Barek, I just saw your latest change and stand corrected (in reference to the message below). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALM1776 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view, and the changes you are posting are not providing rounded out context. Why are you intentionally leaving out the ADL statement? It seems as if you have an agenda here and a libelous one at that. So again, please explain why you refuse to include the ADL statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALM1776 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Vortexx I'm going to make the suggestion that the protection go until the 28th; the 27th is when this block ends and I get the feeling the last day will be full of IP's reverting the 'closed' date and causing other disruption. Don't have to do it, but knowing this article for so long, that's how it will be. Thank you for the protection otherwise. Nate • (chatter) 23:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Can you clarify what you're requesting? The page protection at Vortexx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is currently set to last until Sept 24th; but you mentioned the 27th, so not certain we're looking at the same article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC) I do mean on Vortexx; the block is ending for good on September 27 to be replaced with something called One Magnificent Morning, and I always find when a television block ends that IP's and fan editors always cause havoc around the time it ends. Thus the reason for 4 extra days of protection to account for that. Nate • (chatter) 03:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Seneca College IP This is the same person who was using a Bell Canada IP to insert linkrot templates in between hurling abuse at other editors who questioned their edits. I believe I blocked them for three months at the Bell Canada IP. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC) I would prefer not to do a range block, but so far they Seneca IPs fall into a /27 range, so only 32 IPs would be impacted unless it spreads to broader range of IPs. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Russell Wilson Hi, re Russell Wilson, two questions: (i) why did you apply template protection to a page that is not transcluded, and is neither a template nor a module? When there is a content dispute between two or more autoconfirmed users, we would use full protection. (ii) It's clear to me that both Lorrainx (talk · contribs) and Meatsgains (talk · contribs) made at least six reverts each in less than one hour - that is well beyond WP:3RR, so it would have been appropriate to block both users, perhaps without serving a {{subst:uw-3rr}} first. I see no evidence that either user was blocked or even warned. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC) It looks like I accidentally selected the wrong protection in the drop-down - I had meant to apply temporary full protection. If you wish, feel free to remove protection after warning both users that the must follow dispute resolution and reach consensus on the talk page, and that any continuation of edit warring will result in blocks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC) That Arabic page I was initially confused why I was seeing it here on the English Wikipedia, but after thinking for a bit, maybe the author accidentally placed it here instead of the Arabic Wikipedia? I noticed that it was a direct translation of the Chinese culture article, however the same page doesn't exist on arwiki. What do you think? --benlisquareT•C•E 16:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC) That's a plausible explanation. I see you've already posted to their talk page with a link to the Arabic Wikipedia. Hopefully they were just confused on where to post the articles, and your link could help them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC) page deletion due to personal attack The whole para about sockpuppet passamethod lists all the articles Ive edited, and everything Ive ever done, its all about me (except the erection part). It even says (I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article). I just finished writing that. Why does it matter if my name is specifically there? How specific is "the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article"? Its a clear case of personal attack. zzz (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC) See User_talk:NeilN#I_am_not_a_sockpuppet --NeilN talk to me 03:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Removal of my link: 18:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Hello To give a background, I had earlier added the following links which give additional information on the volatility index (VIX) in India published in actuarial magazine London and India. http://www.theactuary.com/features/2014/09/a-copula-approach-to-volatility-index-in-india/ http://actuariesindia.org.in/(X(1)S(pn4o1w45w4b1kq3mxk3k2viu))/downloads/souvenir/2014/ActuaryIndiaMarch2014.pdf As the links where added under the section "See also" for those who would be more interested in knowing VIX in India. So I am not clear why the link have been removed. I trust the links are of great use, given the facts they had appeared in leading actuarial magazine and request you to reinstate. Regards Chinnaraja C — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinnarajaC Nithisa (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Several reasons for removal. First, you appear to have a conflict of interest, as your username is the same as the author in both of those links. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to publish your personal writings. As to the section where added, the see also section is for internal Wiki links, not to links to external websites. For external links, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines related to external links which can be viewed at WP:External links and WP:Not repository. If you disagree with my interpretation of these policies and guidelines, feel free to start a discussion on the talk page of the article(s) involved (may need to use WP:RFC process to get additional parties involved), or at WP:External links/Noticeboard to see if consensus exists in the Wikipedia community to include the links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Nintendo Life Removal Hi I was planning to create a wiki page of Nintendo Life with a lot of details, but it turns out that many people tried it and got their page deleted. I am not sure how to check the deleted content but can you please state the reason behind the deletion? Is it ok for me to go ahead? Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashpant (talk • contribs) 08:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC) The prior versions of Nintendo Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) simply state that it's a multimedia news and review website with a focus on Nintendo video games and services; one version also listed some "team members" that contributed to the site. Unfortunately, this very superficial content did not pass Wikipedia inclusion criteria and in each case was deleted per speedy criteria WP:A7 "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". Even if a new version of the article were created that made a viable claim of significance or importance, it could also later be deleted if it fails to establish itself as notable. For reference, Wikipedia's definition of notability for web content can be found at WP:Notability (web) (that page is a bit wordy - the key explanation from that page for how to establish notability is in the section WP:Notability (web)#Criteria). To create an article for the website, I would suggest developing it first either in the Drafts: namespace or in your Userspace namespace using multiple third-party reliable sources that discuss the website. Using one of the draft development option will give time to build out the article without someone tagging it for deletion before you have the article ready for the full Wikipedia community. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC) edit warring - Gringrich, Ridge, Freehan support of the PMOI/MEK I was not aware that there was a 3-revision rule. This is a subject that has experienced extensive censorship online by the organization in question. Since 2011, any attempts to post a link to their webpage on Twitter is rejected as all of the links are marked as spam. This is a result of my talking about the literally vast array of political leaders providing material support to the FTO. From 2011 through 2013, the same links were all blocked on Facebook. Comments on news websites on related stories were routinely the subject of malicious editing and so on. Furthermore, there is a contingent of Americans online that apparently are unhappy with news of their preferred political leaders having their dirty laundry aired. Furthermore, the organization has an extensive and active social media presence from which it attempts to control any message about itself that it finds unsatisfactory. A brief review of the Wikileak cables for the group will reveal that the group has expended literally millions of dollars buying its way off of terrorist lists around the globe and operates in what several governments, the CFR, et al have all called "a cult-like manner". However, they commit terrorist acts against Iran and are thus well supported by the American and Israeli intelligence community. The original complaints around the additions related to the NNPOV and to politicized sources. These have been resolved and the additions have been written in a neutral manner, the references were increased and more politicized ones were removed in favor of objectively credible ones. The removals are being made, at this point and to some degree initially with a less than honest basis; compare the revisions of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Ridge&oldid=627307247#Support_for_the_People.27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran for instance, where the 'permissible' versions used references from biased and questionable sources, but the more credible ones I utilized were removed. I do not argue that the original additions were made with a NNPOV, given the context this should be somewhat understandable. Furthermore, the original is written in a manner that itself is non-neutral and suggests that Ridge's support is political mud-slinging instead of objective fact. The additions as they are presently are well-sourced and objective. They are largely written in a neutral manner. The removals are not occurring in a form of edits or suggestions, but outright removals. I have repeatedly modified the content to make it more acceptable, but I am afraid that to some parties any reference will be found objectionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.3.194 (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC) This is, by definition, a content dispute. You need to use the individual article talk pages to resolve any content disputes. To help resolve content disputes, suggestions exist at WP:Dispute resolution on multiple options for resolving the content dispute. However, continued dispruption by edit warring will result in your account being blocked and/or the articles protected to prevent disruption. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Understood. I will exercise that option. What is the suggested remediation when there is no actual complaints about the content, but different users repeatedly simply remove the content? There is an asymmetrical issue here wherein I am essentially penalized for being a single person that doesn't violate (presumably) the ToS. Moving forward, I will utilize the talk page. I do not anticipate a lot of dialogue on the subject though given my personal background with the organizations online presence. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.3.194 (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC) By starting a talk page discussion, it places the onus on the other parties to spell out their concerns with the content. If agreement still cannot be reached, then within the WP:Dispute resolution page are suggestions for drawing other parties to the talk page. In the case you describe, I suspect your best option will be to start a WP:Request for comment, although you could also contact WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. In the end, community consensus needs to be determined either for or against the content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Okay thank you. I will likely have to WP:Request for comment / WP:Dispute resolution. The additions are being removed and largely citing that it's been removed in the past. No discussions are being had, just removed or unfounded statements as to why. ('unsupported statement','which statement?','others have removed the article thus i didnt cite it as an unreliable source and just removed it'). The appearance of consensus and abuse of processes is exactly how this group has managed to maintain all negative references to it off of social media. At any rate, you gave a concise answer, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.2.190 (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC) The crusade of of 172.56.3.19X So, the edit war continues. I have never encountered such an entrenched edit warrior. It almost seems like there is an agenda, especially with their accusation of me having a conflict of interest on the Tom Ridge talk page. They think I am a member of the US military and that would somehow cloud my judgement on the article. I have reported it at the Edit warring notice board and tried to AGF and work with them but I don't feel like I am getting anywhere and we are creating BLP issues and disrupting the stability of several articles for no good reason. EricSerge (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC) The IP appears to be dynamic; judging by the whois data, it appears that range-blocks would have too much collateral damage. I suspect the best route will be using WP:RFPP to protect the pages from disruption. From there, community discussion is clearly needed. I haven't looked closely at the content of the edits; but if BLP is involved as you indicated, then starting at WP:BLPN would be a good start. Alternately, I haven't looked - have RFCs been started on the individual article talk pages? Those tools can help draw uninvolved third parties to review the disputed content as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Jabroni master etc Thanks for that. JABRONI MASTER looks like a sock of Chachbuns, who is upset that I deleted something of his. Is it worth blocking JM as well? Peridon (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC) JM has gone silent for now ... although if they continued with one more disruptive edit, I was already going to block them for being a VOA, regardless of if they are ultimately a sock or meat puppet. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Miracle Mineral Supplement Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC) My guess is that it will be needed given the history; but we will attempt to see how it goes without it. If it does need to be applied again, it should be extended for multiple years (increasing duration over prior PC). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Need help CopyRight/ own Hello, I recently added a page but it was deleted for the lack of references. Most of the page was my own copyright. I am very new to wiki. Are you able to guide me threw on having your own Copy right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessica&jesse ryley :) (talk • contribs) 21:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC) A cup of coffee for you! Thanks for posting to WikiProject Home Living. I missed your post somehow or I would have responded. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Stax The packaging of the Stax themselves has Made In Mexico stamped right on them. I'm reverting you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.163.172 (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC) That may be true; but what is needed are third-party reliable sources. Until such sources are provided, don't be surprised if someone else reverts you again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Green Bay Southwest High School - Distinguished Alumni Andre Jacques was added under the Distinquished Alumni Header for Southwest High School, but did not actually receive this award. The original language in the site was correct: "Established in 2010, the award was created to recognize and honor outstanding graduates who have excelled in their professions and have made significant contributions to their communities." This language can be found at the link below, which recognized Dr. John Katers as the winner of the award in 2012. http://greenbayschools.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/dr-john-katers-receives-southwest-high-schools-2012-distinguished-alumni-award/ In addition to Dr. Katers, the other winners of the award were as follows and had been previously listed on the site: 2010 John Anderson (ESPN) 2011 Dr. Paula Kluth Dr. Susan Sipes It would be appropriate to list Andre Jacques as "Notable" be he should not be listed as "Distinguished" on this page. I am not familiar with how to edit the page correctly, so it would be great if it could be accurately updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3136:A20:75:945D:1904:5DCD (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia has a standardized guideline for determining who qualifies as a "notable alumni", you can see this guideline at WP:SCH/AG#Alumni. In short, to be listed a person needs to be shown to meet Wikipedia's guideline on notability at WP:BIO#Basic_criteria; and related to that, their connection to the school needs to be verifiable via a WP:RS. As to the school's internal list of "distinguished alumni", that's an award created by the school. It could be mentioned in the article that the school created such an award; but we still wouldn't list all recipients unless they individually meet Wikipedia's content guidelines for alumni (ie: this is Wikipedia's website, so we follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for article contents). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC) User:Slaphappygranpappy69 I changed your level 3 warning to level 4 on this user. I did so because on review of this user's edits, they are all vandalism, and one in particular was a WP:BLP violation [4]. Had all of these vandalism edits been done within a short period, he likely would have already been blocked. If you want to change it back to a level 3, please feel free and sorry for the unusual intrusion. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Web Television article editing (today) Hi, I'm writing from Spain, I've included a paragraph on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_television#2000_to_2005:_Streaming section of the Web Television article. That paragraph has been apparently removed by you. Regarding those interviews, who were produced, presented and directed by Pedro Alonso Pablos and who implicated several Hollywood directors and/or actors, like Guillermo del Toro, Keanu Reeves, Oliver Stone (with a small appearance), and others, I strongly believe that due to the international nature of theirs, should be included on that specific section of the English Web Television Wikipedia article. I have searched for a similar kind of content in several "web television" articles in wikipedia (Spanish, English and French) and it seems that there is no evidence of a previous or contemporaneous show like that one made just for the web. As the Wikipedia policy on writing articles is to include worldwide, international milestones for a specific topic, I suggest to include that landmark on that article. Here's the Wikipedia policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias , and here's the repository Youtube channel for those interviews (most of it in Spanish, but with spoken parts in English): http://www.youtube.com/user/dolmenentes Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.208.177.80 (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC) From what I can find, neither Pedro Alonso Pablos nor his website have yet been established as notable subjects as defined at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, nor via the specific sub guidelines of WP:BIO or WP:WEB. What would be needed would be coverage by third-party reliable sources. Otherwise, we have unsourced claims of what was done and its significance. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Hi again, thanks Barek for your response. I have read and understand the notability guidelines of the Wikipedia. Regarding this, it is true that the material was self published by Pedro on his own website. I believe that due to the worldwide recognition of many of the interviewed, who would only give interviews to important tv shows and channels; the scope of those interviews as a whole and the number of them, those interviews are self-notable or something like that, as they are their own evidence of their importance. To explain this a littlebit more, would you think that Keanu Reeves would agree to be interviewed by a random passer-by? The same applies to Guillermo del Toro, and the same applies to other Spanish well-known film directors like Álex de la Iglesia or Santiago Segura. I do think that they should be included on that article, although, of course, I can't take that decision on my own. Those interviews exist and can be verified on the youtube channel mentioned above. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.208.177.80 (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC) There is no question that the subjects are notable; what is not clear is that the interviewer or his website meet Wikipedia's guideline for establishing notability. If they are, there should be third-party coverage of them someplace. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Thanks Baker again. There are several portals in Spain who are starting to cover this issue now, although it took place ten years ago. I can point you to some of these articles if you wish (his Spanish VOD portal Filmin biography: https://www.filmin.es/director/pedro-alonso-pablos ; http://elcorso.es/pequenos-grandes-creadores-pedro-alonso-pablos-y-la-animacion/ ; http://www.visioncineytv.es/2014/09/estreno-en-filmin-de-la-serie-de-animacion-cuentos-del-mundo-de-pedro-alonso-pablos/ ; uncomplete IMDB page: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6758812/ ). Mentioning just those interviews without the creator would make no sense at all; the subjects make the producer notable with their appearances, in my opinion. It's like trying to avoid a recorded evidence or trying to hide a proof that those interviews were recorded for the net in that manner. But I don't want to waste your time. I will try to discuss this issue within the following months. I have to do some tasks now. Thanks Barek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.208.177.80 (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC) IMDB is generally not accepted on Wikipedia as a reliable source, so that one wouldn't work. The other three might work to establish his notability, so a few more with coverage of him could be enough to even create his own article. The remaining problem is connecting those interviews to the web television article. The sources appear to establish that the interviews took place, but don't appear to address them as being created as "web television" type content - only that they were on video (while I personally believe you that they were created for the web; but without a source to clarify they were not originally created for television, it's not sourcable to show they are related to the web television article). Do you have any additional sources available that might clarify that? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Hi again, Pedro says in his about page on the interviews repository channel on youtube that those interviews were created for the net through a net portal called FreakSpain (https://www.youtube.com/user/dolmenentes/about ). Also, in his biography on Filmin (a popular VOD Spanish service, backed by the Spanish Government and other private investors like Almodóvar's production company), it is said the same in Spanish (https://www.filmin.es/director/pedro-alonso-pablos ). Thanks so much 77.208.177.80 (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Thank you, I overlooked that mention on the filmin.es website. Between the refs you mentioned above (filmin.es, visioncineytv.es, and elcorso.es), there should be enough sourcing to support re-adding the text, listing those three sources as refs when adding it back. Feel free to add it; if you have trouble formatting the refs, let me know and I can go back to the page and help clean-up the ref formats later. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC) The small change has been made following your criteria. I just hope this helps us make a better Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.208.177.80 (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC) RE: Subway $5 Footlongs Understand the reason to revert my changes. That said, the entire passage I revised is both unsubstantiated and factually incorrect, based on my presence within the organization as one of the referenced executives. Should we then remove that entire section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallthus (talk • contribs) 20:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC) In the specific paragraph that starts with "Meanwhile ...", the first couple of sentences have a ref[5] in the article, and that source appears to support those sentences; although the sentence starting with "Some stores in blue-collar neighborhoods ..." appears to be unsourced and should be removed. That same source appears to be used as the source for other material in the section as well. Before removing the "blue-collar" sentence, I wanted to clarify which other statements you spotted, so we can clean up the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Link at Exclusive buyer agent Why is a website inappropriate for the Wikipedia page? I own an Exclusive Buyer Agency Real Estate company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exclusive Buyer Agent (talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your business. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC) RE: Redirect AlexanderGee (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Hello, Can you please create for me a redirect for the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JayP to show whats on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay-P AlexanderGee (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC) I have no idea I have no idea what you are talking about me making edits I have not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.206.47.98 (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Someone editing from your IP was vandalizing Wikipedia with disruptive edits, which resulted in your IP temporarily being blocked. Editing history from your IP can be viewed at Special:Contributions/50.206.47.98. If those edits were not made by you, then it was likely someone else who either shares the same IP address or to whom your IP was previously assigned. In that case, feel free to ignore the warning and the expired block notification. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Telstra Hi - you reverted an edit with the reason that a statement from the CEO wasnt encyclopiedic. I disagree. The statemetn provides insight into Telstra's strategy and as such is of interest. The statement doesn't promote a product or service whatsoever. Please reconsider your stance on this. Many corproate articles use citations from execs as data points. 121.211.251.58 (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC) I honestly can't see how you can say it's not promotional to list a CEO statement that Telstra "will be 'relevant forever', as it shifts its energies towards becoming 'digital first'". That's pretty much the definition of a CEO promoting his company. As far as insight, the existing material in the section Telstra#Digital First already provides excyclopedic insight - so from that perspective, the statement is also redundant to the more neutrally phrased existing text. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC) He's given insight into the company's strategy and aspiration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.255.229 (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC) No, the statement is pure puffery. Not that there's anything wrong with him doing that, all CEOs make promotional statements about their respective company. It's just not encyclopedic content. The existing text already addresses the material, while maintaining an appropriate neutral point of view. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Why the Delete? Hello, The Property Manager description given now is a completely awful one…I work for a property management company and was just trying to help. The source i cited the second time is a legitimate .org website that got property management duties on the dot… — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasminElalfy (talk • contribs) 03:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Paula Deen Thank you for correcting that, I was trying to eliminate it and not having any success. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Sugar Loaf NY I feel that the inclusion of a link to the Sugar Loaf historical society is needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudendum (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC) At this time, the link does nothing more than advertise that a historical society exists, it does not expand on an understanding of the community. As such, it fails inclusion criteria of WP:EL and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. The website does indicate that the society is working on updating their website. Perhaps when it goes live with the update, the site will contain historical data not already in the article. If so, it could be appropriate at that point. But for now, it's not --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC) My talk page... Since I'm getting harassment from that editor's IP socks (three times in the last day), could you protect my page for three days? I tried to earlier on RFP but it was declined because of a backlog. Thanks, along with reverting again while I was at work. Nate • (chatter) 02:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC) self removal of my edits You have prevented me from undoing my edits on a page , they are my words and I wish to remove them , why wont you let me do this. 86.152.18.72 (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC) If it were the talk page of your IP, then you would be free to blank conversations from that page. However, you are blanking content from the talk page of another user, who has chosen to archive conversations. That is their right for their own talk page. Unless you can show that your posts violated some Wikipedia policy, there's no reason to remove them. The fact that you made the posts is irrelevant. Also, by blanking the posts, and leaving the replies from the other user, their replies lose all context. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC) thank you , I have tried to apologies but rehnn83 has removed that line , so I will take your advice and leave it on Wikipedia thanks again86.152.18.72 (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC) No problem. I'm sorry you have had a rough beginning on Wikipedia; I know it can sometimes be challenging to learn all the community norms and policies here. If you run into further challenges in editing, please consider using either WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:HELP DESK to ask questions to get assistance with your editing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC) User:Thepeoplespersonofficial You realise the new username this person has proposed for themselves doesn't actually negate the COI issue. They have suggested "TPP515", and if you notice, "TPP" stands for "The People's Person". I suggest you reconsider accepting their unblock request. – PeeJay 22:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC) I was taking one problem at a time. The new name resolves the WP:USERNAME issue. The WP:COI issue will still remain, but that can be resolved through educating them on following WP:COIADVICE. They haven't edited since the unblock. I was going to wait until after they went through WP:CHU/SIMPLE to then post a {{uw-coi}} to their talk page to help them understand. Although, I suppose it would be okay to post that notice to their talk page prior to the name change. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC) prospect high school jimy sohns noted alumni Barek. Ive looked over the requirements to be included and find that Mr. Sohns does qualify as there recording charted on the billboard national charts in 1966 at number 10." Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" Jimysohns (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC) jimysohns Robert J. Adams The sources make clear that The Shadows of Knight is notable (and it appropriately has its own article). However; the band is a separate entity from the individual members, and notability is not inherited from the band to the members. You and I have had this discussion before, in 2011. The the same issues exist today that existed at that time - the refs thus far are simply insufficient. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC) As the founding member and lead singer of the SOK it would make sense that he did inherit this right. I understand you are simply unwilling to accept this. Thank you for your time and exceptional skills at preventing a famous alumni some recogntion. Jimysohns (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Robert J. Adams  ; ) Your opinion on notability is not relevant. What matters is Wikipedia policy and guidelines - and that tells us that notability is not inherited. The individual needs to be shown as meeting the notability threshold as an individual. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Mr Barek. He has met the guidelines set forth, You being an administrator should know this. He is the lead singer of a band that has charted on a national basis. That is in the guidelines. You do not wish to acknowledge it. Otherwise we would say that Bono is not noteworthy even though he is a member of U2. John Lennon is not noteworthy because merely being in the Beatles does not let him inherit such noteworthness. Enjoy yourself my friend. you are too funny. Jimysohns (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)jimysohns Robert Adams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.44.51 (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC) That may be your guideline, it's not Wikipedia's. The band is notable because it has charted on a national basis - being a member of such a band does not result in notability being inherited to those members. Unless Mr Sohn has a solo album that has charted nationally, he does not meet that threshold. The band and the individual members are separate entities. Bono and John Lennon both meet the thresholds as individuals - with multiple third-party reliable sources writing extensive articles about them as individuals. Those articles are not about their bands with trivial mentions of the members, but instead are multiple in-depth articles about the individuals. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Nick Vujicic Hello. Are you aware of the protection log history of this page? - Hoops gza (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC) It looks to already be extended. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Online shopping > history Barek, What's the issue with the link to NetMarket? The company is a going concern where Internet Shopping Network is long gone. Just want to provide a link there similar to what Randy Adams did with Internet Shopping Network. If there was another reference that highlighted what NetMarket is without directly pointing to it, I would use that, but there's no Wikipedia entry for NetMarket. Thanks. Billmdavis (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it's not appropriate to use an external link, just internal Wiki-links to articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC) This, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links , suggests that linking to external websites is ok so can you highlight for me where it suggests that its only appropriate to use an internal Wiki-links to articles? In the case of the link I am trying to add for NetMarket, it would seem to fit this "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic". And why when I add a link does it offer me 2 options of which one is to link to an external web page? Target page or URL: External link Text to display: To a wiki page To an external web page Thanks. Billmdavis (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC) On the page to which you linked, it states it twice. In the first sentence at the top of the page, just under the header blocks, it says: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article." This is again mentioned in the section "Important points to remember", item #2 states: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Barek, The article states, "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links)" and while it says external links should not normally be used, it doesn't say they can't. I think there's a great deal of room for interpretation in there and as NetMarket doesn't have a Wikipedia entry it would seem like posting to the actual URL might make sense. None of the founders and original employees are currently affiliated with NetMarket so all we're trying to do is highlight the role the company played in the history of developing eCommerce. That being said, if creating a Wikipedia entry for NetMarket is what's required, we can certainly do that. Billmdavis (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Actually, it's quite clear with minimal "room for interpretation". The second half of the sentence that you quoted states: "but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article" To clarify what is meant by "not normally", if you follow the reference in item #2 within the section "Important points to remember", it further clarifies: "Exceptions are rare. Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates like {{external media}}, which is used only when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia." The only appropriate course is to use internal links, such as what NeilN has created. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC) @Billmdavis: I've turned into a redlink. Think I'll try my hand at creating an article tomorrow. --NeilN talk to me 02:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Neil, Thanks and would you rather have us do this or are you willing to get this started? The goal wasn't to add more work for someone else. Let me know and if you do it here are some key points in the timeline. NetMarket was founded in early 1994, one of the founders would have to provide the exact date, as they rented a house in Nashua, NH where Eiji Hirai moved in as he had graduated from Swarthmore in spring of 93 (he had no car as he didn't have a license so grocery shopping was done at a local convenience store). The other 3 founders, Dan Kohn, Roger Lee and Guy Haskin, were finishing school at Swarthmore, Yale and Swarthmore respectively and they moved to Nashua in the late spring. 4/5 other people joined the company over the summer. On 8/11/94, The New York Times recognized NetMarket for processing the first secure transaction over the web, http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/12/business/attention-shoppers-internet-is-open.html . CUC International acquired a partial stake in the company in 11/94, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUC_International#History , and then acquired the remainder of the company in spring of 1995. Thanks and let me know if you want me or some of the NetMarket folks to do this. Billmdavis (talk) Billmdavis, anyone associated with NetMarket shouldn't edit the article per our conflict of interest guidelines. I will put more info on your talk page. --NeilN talk to me 14:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Neil & Barek, Thanks. Billmdavis (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC) LTA FYI (sorry if I mentioned this previously!): 203.17.70.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that you recently blocked is WP:UNID. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I just finished blacklisting the most recent URL. I knew the user from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2014 Archive Jan 1#UniverseTomorrow.com ... didn't realize there was a whole string of other domains too. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Link building Hi I am Hnancy and I am just editing the link building wikepage. Thanks for your recommendation! Editing the link building wiki page is my homework that I have to finish these days. I am new to wikipedia editing that I am just exploring how to make changes and add citation on the page. I didn't realized people would respond to and revert my changes immediately. I've searched a lot of information about link building and if you could give me some time and tolerance that I will try my best to edit the page. -Hnancy (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia. If you haven't read it already, there's material at WP:STUDENTS, in the section titled "Advice for students" that may be of use for you. You can also find assistance at WP:HELP DESK and WP:TEAHOUSE. Please be aware that Wikipedia works via community consensus. That means that no one person owns any article. This also means that your contributions can be reverted by others. If multiple other editors revert your material, it may be a sign that there's a problem with the material you are adding. When that happens, it's important to use the article talk page to discuss the content you are attempting to edit on the article talk page. Those discussions can be as much of the Wikipedia experience as can actually editing the article. If you instead continually restore your content, after multiple other editors remove it, that can be viewed as edit warring. Admins have the ability to block user accounts for a short period of time of those users who edit war over content - which can be problematic for both you as well as the Wikipedia community, as blocks could discourage you from continuing to help improve articles in the future. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Unfinished business Please semiprotect User:Antandrus and User talk:Antandrus for three days (it can be reduced later if wanted). There is a report at ANI about incoming attacks from an LTA and a few users have had them (including an extremely minor troll at my talk). The attacker will not stop. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC) links Please advise what sites to be linked? I was linking that site because that meets the niche of the topics I edited. Thanks and regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by JattSaini (talk • contribs) 05:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC) The problem is that the site you are providing as a ref fails Wikipedia's guideline for qualifying to be a reliable source as it's a discussion forum. Please review that guideline at WP:RS, which can help explain what meets the criteria. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC) I haven't got an alert of your reply to this message,why? I am a regular reader of that discussion forum so I linked some useful pages to the Wikipedia articles. And in 2nd alert it says you mention me on worldofdth.com page in spam project page, what is that page for? Will that site be blacklisted as spam site from Wikipedia? What if the owner of that site approaches to you for adding that site to spam project Wikipedia? Please don't mention myself that I have added his site pages to Wikipedia and his site went to Wikipedia spam area. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by JattSaini (talk • contribs) 06:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC) @JattSaini: The spam project page is a place for discussion of links that have potentially been abused on Wikipedia. If there's ongoing addition of the link from multiple users, then the link may also get added at the spam blacklist for further review and potential blacklisting. However, in this case, it appears that you were adding the link in good faith, and the use of the forum as a ref in multiple articles was accidental as you did not realize at the time that such links would not meet Wikipedia's threshold of being a reliable source. As no one else had replied to my posting as yet on the project page, I reverted my own edit there. The link is no longer listed with your name on that page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks will take care of it next time I edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JattSaini (talk • contribs) 08:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC) already cited but removed for no citation I added some quotes that were already cited but you removed them anyway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kermittthheecat (talk • contribs) 02:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC) @Kermittthheecat: - thank you for eventually adding references - but your statement here is misleading. As can be seen if the article edit history, at the time of my revert edit, there were no references included in the additions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC) 66.168.88.182, at it again This IP is making one unsourced edit after another. I see that they were blocked recently, would you mind reviewing the activity. Thanks, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC) I was offline most of the weekend - for faster response, it's better to report disruptive users to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Modern slavery edit 3world Kid (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Hi! That went pretty quickly. I undertook the edit on behalf of the Walk Free campaign to try to increase awareness and fight modern slavery in the world. Is this a no-no or can I negotiate with some monitors about this? @3rdWorldkid: - Are they soliciting the material be added? That might explain the massive sockpuppetry we have seen today of the material being added into multiple articles. See WP:ANI#Large group of socks/meatpuppets adding slavery content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC) 3world Kid (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I have replied on the link you pointed me to. The whole thing has been prepared for some days now, but I fear they might not have done all their homework in organising it - for example, discussing the idea with some of the monitors. I have been an editor for some time, so thought I could help, but I have no insight into the organising itself. Good job! I believe the horse is well and truly dead now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC) slavery statistics Hi Barek. My name is Kate and I was helping to coordinate the research and data collection to update the modern slavery statistics for the Wikipedia pages of the 167 countries included in the recently published 2014 Global Slavery Index. We were planning to add specific information about the prevalence, actual number of slaves, and government response to slavery within each country.  As we don’t have the capacity to do it ourselves, we were excited to receive help from our community. We set specific guidelines for how people could participate and were unaware it would cause this reaction. Is there any way we could discuss this further? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate harf (talk • contribs) 02:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC) @Kate harf: It's easy to get tripped-up by the multitude of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, even when making a good faith effort to contribute. In this case, here are links to some of the ones that caused a problem: Meatpuppetry - the soliciting of a community to edit on behalf of another person or a group can give the impression of trying to obfuscate the origins of the edits. Conflict of interest - adding links to a website to which you have a connection. When done on a large scale, this also can become an issue with Wikipedia's Spam guideline. Due and undue weight - especially on some of the shorter country articles, the block of text can be placing too much weight on a single issue. Many country articles have secondary articles with a name format similar to "Human rights in XXXXX", where XXXXX is a country name. These articles are dedicated to human rights concerns and can be much more appropriate targets to avoid weight issues in the main articles. Wikipedia's Manual of Style - among the additions, there were multiple spotted that broke page layouts or which were poorly placed within articles. The blind addition of content regardless of how it impacts the structure of an article, especially when done on multiple articles, can give the impression that editors are not here to build an encyclopedia, but are instead here to soapbox or to push an agenda. These are the concerns which were brought up by editors at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents when the issue was first spotted. As you can see, there were multiple concerns that would need to be resolved or mitigated. Normally, when editing with a COI, the content that a user wants to add can be discussed on the article talk page. To avoid needing to have 160+ conversations on each article talk page (each of which could have different outcomes), it's potentially also possible to have a centralized discussion and to post neutrally worded links to the discussion on the talk page of related Wikiproject talk pages. If you wish to pursue that option, you could ask for assistance at WP:HELPDESK. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Protecting Rise Against Thanks for protecting the page. This editor's proving to be a real handful. Regards, 4TheWynne (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Also, could you please protect List of hardcore punk bands? This guy can obviously read as well as he can edit. Thanks – 4TheWynne (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Really since when is correct info "disruptive . well you're involved too then . see you both there 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC) there is a discussion going to take place and both of you are included . see you there 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive855 User:4TheWynne keeps removing valid sources and is protecting a deceptive article @73.193.195.69: - new discussions should be added and take place at WP:ANI - you have created the discussion at an archive page from September. I've moved the thread to that page just now for you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Ok Thank You 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Organization Charts We added links to some of the industries most well respected OrgChart companies and this was removed. In such a small niche, you would think that these links are acceptable. Why were they removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streamlineresults (talk • contribs) 19:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for advertising your software product; neither is Wikipedia an internet directory of products or services. All links should meet inclusion criteria as outlined at WP:EL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC) User:Courtney at UW Libraries Per, WP:GROUPNAME and WP:ISU, I don't see how Courtney at UW Libraries (talk · contribs) implies shared use. I.e. usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA". In addition, how is it promotional, inappropriate, or disruptive to correct a set of external links to a public archive of historical photos housed at the UW Libraries? The resource meets the WP:EL guidelines, and the user was only helping to keep the links live. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Full disclosure: I'm at the University of Washington (looks like the same UW) although I have no idea who Courtney is and found this through Wikimedia channels. This seems to be clearly on the right side of WP:ISU and is an almost perfect reproduction of what the policy says is OK. —mako๛ 01:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, after all, WP:ISU specifically states: '... usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", "WidgetFan87", etc.' Peaceray (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC) You are correct, the name format is explicitly allowed, and I will unblock the user immediately. I will also apologize to the user for the erroneous block. The second half of your comment is irrelevant - the block was solely for the username (as stated in the notice) and had zero to do with the external links (I neither warned the user about the links added/changed, nor did I revert any of their edits). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks! I was referring to this part of the policy: "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked. In such cases, administrators should examine the user's edits to decide whether or not to allow them to create a new username. If there is evidence that the user would continue to edit inappropriately under a new username, the blocking administrator should enable the "autoblock" and "prevent account creation" features. Otherwise, the user should be offered the opportunity to create a new account." I've seen lots of accounts blocked immediately for nothing but an account that matched the name of an organization or company, yet the policy here is saying that it requires both an inappropriate name and inappropriate edits for an immediate block. Absent the bad edits, a request to change their user name is called for: "Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Orion's belt The information I updated is accurate, and factual, and adds to the post, and doesn't harm anyone. I have the documentation to prove it. Please explain in detail why you keep removing it without explanation Joshclark82 (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Joshua Clark, 12/19/14Joshclark82 (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Please respond The International Star Registry is not authoritative, and any names with that organization have zero encyclopedic value. The International Astronomical Union is the only organization to be internationally recognized to designate stars, planets, asteroids, comets, and other heavenly bodies according to internationally accepted rules. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Please explain yourself I deserve an explanation as to why you are deleting perfectly accurate, positive, and doccumented facts Joshclark82 (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)joshclark82 @Joshclark82:: The International Star Registry is not a reliable source, and any names with that organization have zero encyclopedic value. The International Astronomical Union is the only organization to be internationally recognized to designate stars, planets, asteroids, comets, and other heavenly bodies according to internationally accepted rules. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Deleting info First, this is Wikipedia... Not an encyclopedia.... There are MANY, MANY, MANY things on here that would never come close to making it into an encyclopedia. The information I posted was accurate and factual. And it is documented public record, and not harmful to anyone. So please explain what your problem is with having the most accurate information available. Joshclark82 (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)joshclark82 @Joshclark82::Already explained. And yes, Wikipedia is an Internet encyclopedia - and we have site policies and guidelines such as WP:RS (reliable sources) which the agency you mention does not meet. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict) (talk page stalker) Please seeWP:NOT, one of the official policies that explains the fundamental error in your reasoning. And please see WP:RS, the official guideline on reliable sources. It's the basis for the previous responses you got here previously. DMacks (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC) removal of information on Claude's Shannon's son seems frivolous and anti wiki why would you burned it off topic to talk about the fact that Claude Shannon actually had three children. Do you know anything about Claude Shannon's family? you mentioned his children so obviously you thought it was on topic however you less left out his eldest son Robert. Robert followed in his father's footsteps in the field of computer science. I knew Robert and the family from 1975 until his father got sick. Robert died after his father got sick puppy for his father died. at least write that he had another son. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B11D:BB7D:60D0:9003:E448:2EC1 (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)