User talk:Barek/Archive 2016

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

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

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

Hamtramck, Michigan

Your recent edit. I spent a lot of time adding info to that page and you deleted it. I understand why you did but why don't you at least make a new Wiki page so that the Police history can all go there? I would do it but I don't have the rights to yet. The Hamtramck page that is... Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGuardianofTruth (talk • contribs) 12:39, 6 January 2016‎

@TheGuardianofTruth:: You should be able to create draft articles using the tools at Wikipedia:Drafts - that's probably the best way to develop an article about the city's police department. The draft namespace is a bit more flexible in allowing users to create those before they have access to create mainspace articles. Using the draft process also generally gives you more time to develop, add sources, and cleanup formatting before other editors begin tagging it for those; also, the draft process provides a method for an initial review prior to it being moved to mainspace, The review can help new editors identify areas to improve so as to reduce the risk of it being tagged for deletion in case it didn't quite meet a content requirement. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim1138

Hi.

How did you get involved in this business with @Jim1138:?

Jim1138 left an erroneous and damaging Edit Warring warning on my page.

You can see what he did here. In the 'History' section, he replaced an entirely duplicated section, duplicating the content immediately above it. He called it an "Unexplained removal of content". No content had been removed, it had only been paragraphed ... which he then duplication.

He was obviously in the wrong. He obviously paid no attention to the content.

Then he left the erroneous and damaging bad mark which I have asked him politely to apologise, and remove and erase it.

It strikes me it would take a lot less effort just to do so than all this running around.

It is not a "content issue", it was bullying.

Can you remove and erase it? I don't want it to be left to be used against me, as already happened.

Thank you. --Wordfunk (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned to drop the stick, yet continued with your harassment. As a result, you have been temporarily blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Barek. Could you merge History of the Kurds to Kurds? Article of Kurds is protected and watchlisted by many admins and therefore not target of vandals. However, History of the Kurds is an area of vandalism and sockpuppetry. lf you cannot do that, can you please watchlisted the article History of the Kurds at least? 'Cause it needs an admin intervention. Regards...85.105.128.126 (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.:Take a look at this. You'll see the plenty of disruptive edits (major content deletions, nationalist POV-pushings, vandalisms, edit-warrings, bla bla.). Majority of such edits were (and are) done by various ipv4s, ipv6s and proxies. Admins should pay attention to this article. 85.105.128.126 (talk) 11:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of the material is limited, so it may be better to either ask one of the admins who has made recent edits to one of the articles involved - or to start a WP:RFC discussion on one of the article talk pages to discuss the proposed merge. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Perry

Hi! OMG...I am SO SORRY! This is my very first time ever updating at Wikipedia...and I had NO IDEA how it worked!! Please allow the update that Steve Perry is in the studio, as this is MAJOR news and current, and will keep this page up-to-date. I wrote the content myself on my site, so there is not an issue there. But please bring any concerns to my attention. Seriously...I had NO IDEA how this works. (obviously)... but the page was in much need of the biggest update in two decades. Would you assist me in bringing this about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gini Garbick (talk • contribs) 05:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...one more quick thing. About copy/pasting from another site. That other site is mine, so there is no infringement (just laziness). I should've mentioned that, but I retyped it within the Wikipedia page. If you have any further concerns about my sorry ass attempt at a first time contribution, please give me a yell! Again, I am so sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gini Garbick (talk • ----Ginicontribs) 06:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if not a copyright issue, a fan-site would also not meet Wikipedia's criteria of being a reliable source. Assuming a source exists that would meet the sourcing requirements, please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We just need to record the sourced facts, without the puffery and promotional wording. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...should I have the content on the front page of my site copywritten? I'm not sure I understand. Please advise. Plus, I totally get that about the "puffery", I think you're probably referring to the all caps and bolding, correct? I completely understand your policy on that. I'm just trying to post an update. How do I do that? The content on your site with regard to this subject matter is not current. I am happy to not bother you, and move along...I just happen to love Wikipedia, and rely on it for a lot of information. This is one topic I know very well, and could bring you current. I'm just not sure how to do that.---Gini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gini Garbick (talk • contribs) 19:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marquette county bigger than Keweenaw county

Why I edited, because Marquette County looked bigger than Keweenaw county. The Isle of Royale is part of Canada, not United states, Michigan, and Keweenaw county. It is in Ontario province of Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.168.95 (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isle Royale is part of Keweenaw County. In total land area, Marquette County is bigger than Keweenaw County. But, the physical area under jurisdiction of Keweenaw County includes a large area (over 90% of the county) under the surface of Lake Superior. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You did a mistake, Barek. I looked that Marquette County is bigger than Keewenaw county. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.168.95 (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In land area, Marquette county is bigger - in total area, Keewenaw county is bigger (difference is because 90% of Keewenaw county is covered by water, as it's within Lake Superior). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, Barek. Because the water percent of Keweenaw county is only 16 percent, but for Marquette County, it is 39 percent of water area — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.168.95 (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me with whom you are disagreeing - both the Keweenaw County website and the US Census website support that 90% of the county is covered by water. If you dispute that, you'll need to find third-party reliable sources showing those sources are wrong. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to Wallingford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallingford,_Connecticut

Please help me out here and help me understand why using the public information from the municipal website was deleted?

I edited:

History[edit]

Wallingford was established on October 10, 1667, when the Connecticut General Assembly authorized the "making of a village on the east river" to thirty-eight planters and freemen.

To include all of http://www.town.wallingford.ct.us/Content/History_and_Description.asp

As a municipal website, I would think the content use would be free to use here but perhaps not.

What I can tell you is someone has made major edits to the Wikipedia page for Wallingford and reduced the content from what is was to almost zero.

If it helps you at all - I am a Wallingford Town Councilor, elected by the people of Wallingford to serve the town.

Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUNDERSTONE (talk • contribs) 19:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The website is clearly marked "© 2008-2016 All rights reserved. Town of Wallingford Connecticut." - which limits the free use of the content. The page can be a useful source, but the Wikipedia article would need to be based on that content (summarizing in own words), not a direct copy/paste of the content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Very well - thank you for the clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUNDERSTONE (talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Related to Jhansi article

Hi Barek,

In the article section, a better citation is asked in case of Amit Singhal. A reliable citation has been added, so can we remove the better citation needed message.

Thanks, Work2win (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning that. I agree, the provided ref resolves the question. Technically, adding the new ref to his own article resolved the issue - but having it both in that article plus in the Jhansi article makes it very clear that the cleanup tag is no longer needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access

Can you please remove 42V81's access. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Leap Year!

7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian "Redban" Reichle

Hi Barek,

I am a first time (potential) contributor to Wikipedia, and though I'm not really familiar with the rules I'm reaching out to you as I'm trying to do the right thing before re-publishing a page that you deleted in 2014, and that was previously deleted in 2011. I literally joined Wikipedia because I have enjoyed this individuals work for many years and think it's crazy that he has been denied recognition by Wikipedia.

Brian "Redban" Reichle is a notable individual on a number of fronts, and far moreso than many others on Wiki.

He is a well knowns stand-up comedian, has an upcoming comedy special, has appeared in several documentary and feature films. Redban has been a contributing member and the technical founder of several Podcasts which have been #1 hits on iTunes (The Joe Rogan Experience, the Ice House Chronicles and Death-squad - as well as a number of other less notables ones). He is the founder of the Deathsquad Comedy group which boasts some of the greatest talent in the industry today and as a result has director and producer credits in numerous productions of other comedians.

Redban has a substantial social media following on Instagram (c55k) and Twitter (c155k) which is reflective only of his works in the areas I have mentioned and, I'm sure, many more than I am not aware of which other users would be able to add.

If you're willing to allow me to put up the page again, I'll make sure it's of sufficient quality and illustrates all of the above.

Please add a [talkback request] as I assume that will help me see the response, let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks, Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexWood68 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the long history of disruptive editing by several editors related to that subject, your best bet for getting a new article created for him would be by creating a draft article. Guidance on that process can be found at WP:Articles for creation. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CardologyCommunity.org on List of Internet Forums

Dear Barek, I received your notice about adding Cardology Community to the list of Internet Forums. My question for you is, is it the forum itself that doesn't fit your requirement or is it the link itself? Cardology Community is a legitimate forum and is the official international online forum for the International Association of Cardology. If it is just the link, then I am happy to have it removed.

If it is the forum itself, then it seems to me that if Wikipedia is offering a list of internet forums that would include all forums, not just certain hand-picked ones. Please let me know what the criteria is to be included in this list.

Any information you can offer is greatly appreciated!

GinaEJones (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Gina E. Jones Founder of International Association of Cardology and CardologyCommunity.org[reply]

@GinaEJones: to be added to the list, the site should have it's own article on Wikipedia (as do all existing entries on that page). Wikipedia has a guideline for establishing notability of an internet site (such as forum), which can be viewed at WP:WEBPAGE. In summary, for the site to have its own article, there will need to be third-party reliable sources which can be used to demonstrate one of two criteria
  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
For more guidance on creating an article, please see WP:Your first article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The World Tomorrow

Why do you, C.Fred and Roberticus have such a biased personal interest in your blatant ongoing (for well over one year) vandalism of this particular Wikipedia page. Your combined acts in collusion with one another, have been reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.199.177.17 (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The material fails multiple Wikipedia guidelines and policies. What are needed are third-party reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about Superstation WGN, and the Word networks? Would those links be reliable enough sources for you? Or, a link to a current episode? No matter how hard you try to disrupt this page and its factual article, your combined efforts to do so cannot change the information you diabolically and deliberately deleted. The programs were preserved by Bob Dole and the show is in current production with a brand new dynamic and charismatic well educated, host! 😀 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.199.177.17 (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, drop the melodramatic accusations - it's harder to focus on typing replies when I'm laughing at those.
The only source provided to support the claim that Dole ordered the archival was http://www.loc.gov/rr/main/religion/mptv.html - that source supports that the archive exists, which is why the mention remains in the article, but does not mention Dole in relation to those archived materials. However, even if it did mention that Dole ordered the archival - comments about dinners and personal friendships are off topic and irrelevant to the archive information. Links to episodes may be useful in some contexts, but they do not support the claims that were in the article. Those claims would require synthesis and original research to draw conclusions that were not actually stated in those sources. The other sources you mention were not in the article. If you feel you have additional third-party reliable sources, feel free to bring them up for discussion on the article talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roberticus edit history displays a clear personal biased history of disruptive editing to this article and numerous ARMSTRONGISM related Wikipedia articles. Roberticus disruptive editing of these related Wikipedia articles has taken place for several years. Any cursory search of the history of The World Tomorow Wikipedia page reveals a clear personal biased disruptive editing of the page for over one year by Barek. The following link above shows the Aukerman, Dole, World Tomorrow connection, but it has been ignored by Barek/Roberticus/C.Fred: http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1284860 These links prove the Dole Loc World Tomorrow preservation: http://www.herbert-armstrong.org/Video/index.html https://m.thetrumpet.com/articles/9770,19 http://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2012/08/hwa-films-preserved-forever-in-library.html?m=1 https://m.thetrumpet.com/articles/9770,19

FYI: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.223.201.128 (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continued attacks on other editors both here and on the article talk page are likely to result in additional blocks of your IPs (note: the blocks have been done by third parties who have viewed the prior violations of WP:NPA and blocked the IPs per Wikipedia policy).
Any unbiased review of my edits will show that I have followed Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The fact that you dislike my edits is not the same as "disruptive" as you choose to characterize it.
As to your comments on sources, that discussion belongs on the article talk page. I have already replied over there to the duplicate text that you also pasted over there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assange World Tomorrow title card VS Armstrong World Tomorrow title card upload

The world tomorrow (radio and television) and World Tomorrow (Julian Assaunge). Could you please explain to us the difference between uploading a title card for the Assange World Tomorrow show, which is allowed, versus not allowing a title card fro The World Tomorrow (Armstrrong) show. Both title cards were uploaded in every detail identically and in compliance with every Wikipefia rule and guideline. But, the title card for the Assange World Tomorrow remains unchallenged by "copyright", and the title card for the Armstrong World Tomorrow is deemed not worthy and in "copyright" violation. It was quickly removed when it was uploaded properly. It would appear to us you have a close personal relationship to this subject matter, and long history editing the page to you own personal tastes. All others who challenge your edits are deemed disruptive vandals and repeatedly blocked by either yourself, or very quickly by another editor you contact to do the blocking, for you. There is no valid reason to allow a title card on the Assange World Tomorrow page, but not to allow a title card on the Armstrong World Tomorrow page. By your logic citing "copyright" the Assange title card does not fall under fair use either, and it should also be redacted. We have phoned Wikipedia Corporate offices to lodge complaints against you for your recent personal attacks, disruptive editing, and vandalism to the World Tomorrow (radio and television) pages. A teleconference is scheduled between us and the administrative office tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.223.202.49 (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A) It was not uploaded properly - Commons does not accept "fair use", which is why that other program isn't stored on the Commons. The appropriate procedures have been explained to both your named and IP accounts, both here and on Commons, dating back over three years.
B) Your continued nonsensical conspiracy theories are becoming tedious. Read WP:NPA. The fact that multiple people see the problems in your edits does not mean there is some sort of cabal - the far more likely explanation is that you continue to ignore and demonstrate disdain towards Wikipedia site policies and guidelines, as well as repeated insults and false accusations towards those you have tried in the past to explain how to resolve the issues.
C) Feel free to make whatever claims you like. I have zero concern by any unbiased parties (ie: not you) looking into my edits. You should also read WP:BOOMERANG, which has a high likelihood of being applicable in this instance, given the long history of your disruptive behavior and personal attacks against other editors by your named and IP accounts.
D) If the images can be uploaded and licensed properly, I could at that point assist with getting the images formatted correctly rather than in the broken format your named account was using.
E) For talk-page-stalkers and others wanting to review the history, here are relevant links:
--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry to inform you, we do not play with puppets, and we do not wear socks. We are the producers, trademark and copyright holders of The World Tomorrow. We take serious issue with you personally attacking us, disrupting the page, and harassing our church members who are not fluent in this site, who have tried to remedy the matter. We are Steve, Earl and Shirley Timmons. We can be contacted at our Church of God, WorldWide Ministries offices to discuss the problem personally, at your convenience. (Redacted) www.theworldtomorrow.tv. Thank you and God Bless. Steven, Shirley & Earl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.223.202.47 (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained to your prior sockpuppet accounts by myself and others, discussions about Wikipedia content will be kept on-wiki. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note, a notice has been placed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting review of issue at my talk page, requesting other editors and admins to review this issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, You and your handful of sock puppets (yes you have multiple Wikipedia accounts) should just delete the article completely from Wikipedia. But know nothing you do can erase the facts of the Senator ordering the television program preserved into the National Archives of the Film and Television division of the United States Library of Congress. Nor can you delete the fact of our current and past program hosts. You cannot change these facts or the historical events of the Sadat White House State dinner, no matter how hard you've tried to delete it all and conceal it from this article. It has also been published in the monthly periodical The JOURNAL, by reporter and author Dixon Cartwright. We will be conducting a personal interview with Senator Dole regarding the preservation, after I see he and his wife Liz at the Republican National Convention. The Dole preservation interview will air on radio and television in an upcoming episode of The World Tomorrow! Have a blessed life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.223.192.48 (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As has been stated before: the fact that the program is archived was never removed from the article. As to the anecdotal claims about dinner at the White House, it's horribly sourced and not really encyclopedic anyway - as has been pointed out to you by multiple established editors.
As to your progressively more bizarre and convoluted conspiracy theories about me - beleive what you wish, I don't care. The separation between those theories and reality is so great, there is simply no need in bothering to point out the flaws - it's obvious to all rational readers.
Any further rants by you to this talk page will be reverted. Good luck in your endeavors elsewhere. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minnie Driver

Whilst I understand the requirement to protect Wiki pages from malicious editing, I attempted to correct faulty information regarding only the birth place. Calling this 'unconstructive' or 'vandalism' is baseless and incorrect as the information was provided by the subject, on Twitter, a fact you don't wish to recognize or check for yourselves. I would suggest that a written statement (Twitter) by the subject as a Primary Source, would constitute sufficient evidence, esp. to satisfy the needs of Wikipedia, that certain information was bona-fide and irrevocable. So, yes, General Ization has made a mistake in not allowing the correction and no, I was not experimenting, although I am not in the habit of making amendments to Wiki pages. There is no edit war between editors, this is simply the moderators assuming that a potential edit is malicious and cannot be bothered to check the source. I really thought that making a correction to a flawed entry would be somewhat easier than it has turned out,so as it stands, the information contained on your webpage is incorrect, which ironically only enhances the reputation of Wikipedia as being an unreliable source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herrbartlet (talk • contribs) 22:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Herrbartlet: - you are engaged in the very definition of an edit war, regardless of if you admit that fact - and are at risk of being blocked due to those actions. Additionally, despite your claim above, at no point did I characterize your edits as 'unconstructive' or 'vandalism'. I was made aware of the Tweets by another editor, and they have already been discussed on the article talk page at Talk:Minnie Driver#Place of birth. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) In fairness to the editor, I injudiciously used the {{uw-vandal}} template when I should have used uw-unsourced, and for that I apologize, though his conversation with me on my Talk page should have made abundantly clear the reason his edits were being reverted. General Ization Talk 23:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

change updateSteven37nguyen (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Good Day to you Barek, I am doing a project for my English class and learning on how to edit Wikipedia pages, how to add thing correctly and how to communicate with the editors. any feed back on the process would be greatly appreciated. I would like to know what I could have done better or if my summary about the business portion was ok or not. thank you in advance. (Steven37nguyen (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@Steven37nguyen: - Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. To get started, I see that you already have links to some of the new-user resources on your talk page. I'm a supporter of new users taking advantage of those resources to ask questions and to get assistance, but I am willing to answer questions myself as well.
Regarding your question about the edit that I reverted at Service dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the primary reason was that it appeared to me that it added undo weight to a secondary topic; if you disagree, feel free to start a discussion at talk:Service dog to see if community consensus supports the content in the article. In summary, my take was that the paragraph was heavily about the law, which has its own article. The material appeared much more appropriate for the article about Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). That secondary article has a high-level summary in the service dog article, which then links to the law so that anyone wanting to learn more can go to the article about the law without the need of having redundant extended detail in the article about service dogs. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A strange coincidence?

Hi! I've been doing a bit of digging and find this a bit odd and more than coincidental IMO. IP user 87.81.137.181 under anon. block temporarity for evading a block here. IP user 87.81.237.158 recently pops up and heads to the same subject material? WP:DUCK? Regards,   Aloha27  talk  21:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel they are the same user, the place to report it and make a case for abuse would be at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change (or potentially at WP:ANI, although they may also direct you back to the SPI report page as well). Personally, I'm not familiar enough with the history of that main account to make a DUCK call from a single pair of IPs. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It took awhile, but I found this to be rather interesting. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  22:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Aloha27: - sorry, I slightly misdirected you. The page I pointed you was the record of prior edits by socks of that main account. To create a new ticket, you need to go back to the main WP:SPI page, select "show" to the right of the text "How to open an investigation:" then create a new case for "Vote (X) for Change". That way all the needed subpages and links are populated to correctly track the SPI ticket. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I'll keep it in mind for the next time. With about a gazillion socks already traced and blocked from that source, I'm afraid we're not finished with that puppeteer yet. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  03:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor

Hey there, I know that I didn't see that you are mentoring, but I wonder if you could help me out and become a better editor on Wikipedia! Hope to talk soon. Snowycats (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out to me. I'm willing to answer questions or provide guidance when I'm available; but my availability can sometimes be sporadic (for example, I was away for several weeks in March and April), so someone who is more regularly online may be better suited to be a formal mentor on Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the tyger

hi barek... that link was important... it directly relates to 'the tyger' and is an animated version of the tyger (and as far as I can see the only one that exists in this form)

would that not be appropriate?

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.179.116 (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an internet directory of non-notable videos that people have made themselves. Use Facebook to publish/promote the video, it's not appropriate on this site. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foster City, California

I just wanted to bring to your attention that you protected this page under 30/500. Could you reduce the protection? That level is only authorized by ArbCom or by the community. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for pointing that out ... in the protection level drop-down menu, the two levels next to each other - I think I clicked wrong on the drop-down. Protection level fixed now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Messe - East Lansing High School Notable Alumni

Today, I see you removed Daniel Messe from the East Lansing High School alumni page.

The reference was his band was notable yet Dan as an individual was not.

Dan is the founder, composer and lyricist for the band. He is the music.

This link shows all of his music credits:

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). <ref>http://www.broadway.com/buzz/171306/ooh-la-la-dan-messe-craig-lucas-nathan-tysen-to-pen-musical-adaptation-of-amelie/Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).

Can he be reinstated on the Alumni page.

Thank you, Marqueeeditor (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Natan[reply]

Wikipedia has a guideline that discusses who should be listed in school alumni sections, you can view it at WP:ALUMNI. The relevant text states "Who should be included? ... Per Wikipedia:Bio#Lists of people, alumni to be included must meet Wikipedia notability criteria."
If you follow that link to the notability criteria, it states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
A page published by his band, his publisher, or agent would not meet that criteria; but the above link to the broadway.com article should resolve the issue, so the mention could be restored using that ref. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dirtbag

please put my alterations back on the page

i'm trying to make a hilarious joke for my friend's birthday and you are ruining it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyquil1msn (talk • contribs) 18:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia isn't the place to create birthday jokes. Continued disruption can result in your account being blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doubles (Food)

Why have the additions - photos and links to the Doubles (Food) page been undone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalamazadkhan (talk • contribs) 21:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an image gallery, and not an internet directory. It's not appropriate to add 19 images to such a short article. The majority of those images didn't even show the food product itself, nor even the preparation of it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Point taken.

But ... why delete the link to a newspaper piece on origin of this dish (the origin is mentioned in the original article). There was also a photo of the heir to the creator of this dish that was deleted.

Also, the nature of the dish and the culture behind this street food are inextricably intertwined with HOW the dish is sold ... the Doubles Vendor. Hence the photo a the doubles vendor in his natural environment (the street) is essential. Without this itinerant food hero ... the Doubles would be meaningless.

A Doubles is not some fast food sold in a sterile McDonald's type chain outlet. It is a product unique to the individual Doubles vendor.

The condiments that are added to the Doubles are an indispensable part of the taste ... the flavour ... of this dish.

There was a link to the preparation of the dish.

Hope this clears up some of the misunderstanding of what the Doubles is and the space that it occupies in the culture of Trinidad and Tobago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalamazadkhan (talk • contribs) 02:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, street food is not unique to the area, it exists world-wide - again, that doesn't mean the article should be flooded with 19 images that dwarf the amount of text in the article. One or two images that illustrate the food and/or preparation would be much more appropriate for an encyclopedia.
As to the links - if any support text within the article, they should be inserted as references to the text they explicitly support. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mars

Hello Barek, I am part of the team that created the work for the sources of my edits so I think they are reliable enough to be accepted. I think I am as close as possible to the primary source for the information provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinndsay (talk • contribs) 02:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:No Original Research - your statement is pretty much the definition of why the material should not be added. What is needed are third party reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and fix the missing sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinndsay (talk • contribs) 03:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nerd article

So, if I say it is the same thing that asperger, it gets deleted, but if I say it is not the same thing, it gets deleted too, that's the definition of trolling.

By the way, that paragraph is from Wikipedia, but I'm afraid to say which page since Sundayclose would go there and delete it tooGranito diaz (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR "A" v ENGVAR "B"

As you have an interest in this, I'm copying you into this ongoing discussion:

(edit by Barek: converting copy/paste of discussion into a link to the original discussion, so as to avoid duplicate threads)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.237.158 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 10 May 2016‎

Please cite to WP rules when you make threats

You recently said that if I changed the meaning of someone else's edit, I would be banned from WP, but you did not cite to the rule that would support this contention. Please do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.28.103 (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TALKNO, as well as WP:VANDAL#Talk page vandalism. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ADT

I added the additional information to the ADT Page. It is entirely accurate as we are a sub dealer of ADT through one of their dealers - Safe Streets. Please let me know what is inaccrate so we can edit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.92.12.253 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to advertise and to spam a link to your company. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the purpose is not to advertise of spam a link. We have an agreement with them and it is entirely factual. The link is to source the comment. Tell me how to edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.92.12.253 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could stop inserting your company name as well as links to it into articles about those companies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for promoting your company. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Im not really sure what you are trying to accomplish. Each of those articles have many companies listed in there. They are factual. The amtrust comment does not have a link to a website or anything. Only actually to the terms and conditions to support that the product is offered by Amtrust Financial. I will remove all links etc but any other comments are facts and according to the terms or use are valid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.92.12.253 (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were already warned on your talk page - continued use of Wikipedia to advertise your company will result in your account being blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 96.92.12.253, I found this dispute from Recent Changes. The problem isn't whether or not your edits are factual, it's whether or not they're relevant or self-promotional. As it stands, suggesting that your company should be mentioned specifically out of "hundreds of contractors" is not fair to the others and absolutely constitutes promotional content. Make sure you've read WP:PROMO and feel free to ask questions. Jergling (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Disagree with ur change bc u considered it 'not constructive.'

In fact, I think it is highly 'constructive.' The primary issue in discussion about sex work is false beliefs, misconceptions & confusion caused by silence. Celebrities & other high profile figures involved in sex work is important help to shine a light on the reality of the issue. Removing this heading only continues to HIDE & further cloak this topic in silence, which exacerbates ignorance. Hiding & distorting information about the topic undermines the work of organizations around the world who are trying to change public policy.

The gay rights movement would not have progressed without public figures coming out of the closet; or without hypocrites being outed. I think it's important to have a separate section to keep track of public figures' statements, opinions & activities related to the topic - as in any topic.

The fact is, these incidents involving celebrities did occur - it is the truth & people should have a realistic, honest picture of the landscape. Removing the topic of 'public figures' is misleading.

This is a common header in nearly any topic & this should not be treated differently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.pparkle (talk • contribs) 03:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your political goals are irrelevant. What matters is community consensus, as well as Wikipedia's policy WP:BLP. Simply listing a group of celebrities is not constructive to the article - such a list is unsourced and without context. If you disagree, you can take it up on the article talk page at Talk:Sex worker, or on the talk page of a relevant Wikiproject such at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Sex work task force or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
You have been really busy on Evie (wrestler) Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Cave (wisconsin) edit.

hey, just noticed that you reverted the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Cave_(Wisconsin) article to it's older form. I'm attempting to expand it with information that I have direct access to, I'm rather new to Wikipedia and need some help with formatting both the article, and the References. would you possibly be willing to assist me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratagar (talk • contribs) 15:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratagar: Adding references can be tricky if you're not familiar with the templates. Guidance on adding sources can be found at WP:CITE. Optionally, you could also request assistance at WP:HELP DESK or at the WP:Teahouse. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

removal of addition of two sentences re online sweeps at sweepstakes

Yikes... that was quick

Was my error in adding the unlinked url addresses? Or would you have thrown it out anyway? And if so, why? It seems to me that being able enter sweepstakes online changes the game and is at least as important if not more as sweepstakes parlors... help? What am I missing here?

Thanks

Annew43 (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Anne WaymanAnnew43 (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Annew43: If the sites are documented in third-party reliable sources, then those sources could be used to justify the inclusion. However, as it stood, the addition was essentially nothing more than an advert for the listed sites. They simply mention the sites exist sourced to nothing other than themselves, and providing no encyclopedic context or notable events beyond their simply existing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick.net edits

Thank you for your message. I hear what you're saying. It's tough. I actually think it would be easier to do a Patrick Killelea page than a Patrick.net page... But I'm helping out as best I can with the material he gave me and the goal he has. One of the things I noticed is that a couple of threads by contributors on Patrick.net got picked up by Business Insider. So, I'm thinking that speaks to the kinds of quality threads you can find on the site, adding another dimension to the article that's about the site rather than Patrick, himself. And one is about general finance, which shows how the site has evolved into a broader forum than just a housing forum.

I was also thinking that Patrick was interviewed several times on the whole rent-vs-buy calculation during the housing bubble, all refer to his crux of the message on the original site. He also has a book he wrote as a culmination of all the ideas that triggered Patrick.net. The book is called "The Housing Trap." It's a well written book. But, Patrick is the author. It has 42 reviews on Amazon. Would these be appropriate things to add to the Housing Bubble page? It would give us a reference back to the site's page that's relevant... Certainly relevant to Patrick... I just have to tie it to Patrick.net (it appears on the cover).

I also wanted to thank you for reverting some of the edits. PatNet attracts all kinds, if you know what I mean. I was so relieved when you caught it. If it continues to be a problem, or you start feeling uncomfortable, for example, and you need additional background, I'm happy to explain on a more private channel, if such a thing exists on the Wiki platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susannny (talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the articles I was suggesting for the housing bubble refer to Patrick.net as a site that an alternative news site "mainstream media not giving it to you straight," and a most popular housing bubble destination. To quote: He booted up his site, started to warn people there was a big bubble blowing in real estate and predicted prices could fall by 50%. Up until the bubble burst, many people thought he was nuts. Of course, we all know now he’s “crazy like a fox!” History has proven him spot on. His site (Patrick.net) gets more than 20,000 visitors a day. Recently, he put out another warning–telling people to rent and hold off buying. If you thought now is the time to buy real estate, you better wait and read this excellent article below first. –Greg Hunter— USA Watch Dog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susannny (talk • contribs) 23:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the developing consensus from other editors on the AfD discussion page; the challenge is to find a reference source that discusses the site - not referencing to it. Unfortunately, the majority of the articles out there are about Patrick Killelea himself. In some ways, this would make it easier to work towards an article about the person; but, to do that has its own challenges. The Wikipedia guideline for biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) are some of the most strict in terms of needing references for information about the subject; and then there are slightly different notability guidelines at WP:Notability (people) which would need to be met. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Range block

FWIW, I've blocked the IPv6 range that your alternate page harasser has access to, i.e. 2001:E68:6C0A:D00:0:0:0:0/64. I know they have IPv4's as well but still. Bishonen | talk 14:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks! No idea what set them off, although I don't particularly care either. Their attempts to harass haven't been a big deal to me - if anything, it just feeds my wiki-addiction by giving me something to do when I log on during a break from real-world activities. Although, I was considering looking into seeing if it's within Bot policy to periodically reset that page automatically. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? That's an interesting thought. I've never heard of such a thing, but then bots are one of my many areas of incompetence. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I don't have my own bot, so I would need to see if an existing bot owner has one where such a function would be within scope. I would envision it similar to the periodic reset of the sandbox page, just with a longer interval (maybe once a week rather than multiple times a day). Alternately, if an archival bot can be tweaked to reset the page, that could work too. Not sure either exists, I just haven't gotten around to looking yet - has seemed like too much effort, and other interests always seem to take precedence.
I also thought about looking into an edit filter; but as my talk page is the only one involved, I hadn't wanted to request one of those yet either. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry/temporaryfencefordogs.com

I have reported three users: Nelson8708000, Pravaskuwar and Fradshing, as socks since all three have only been adding links to temporaryfencefordogs.com some of which you have reverted. Dan D. Ric (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting the socks - I only recall being aware of Fradshing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Church affiliation

Are you perhaps a former disinfranchasied disgruntled member, or current member of the WorldWide Church of God, known now by the name Grace Communion? Since you're a West Coast Californian, and thier formerly based in Pasadena, CA., I'm curious because you seem obsessed with personally controlling the content of this TV show Wikipedia page. And, are you aka WerldWayd and aka C.Fred? Very odd Barek, as you appear to have hijacked this article and you removed well sourced Senator Dole preservation section from this page, and from the Ted Armstrong Wikipedia page too. Very odd. Removing an entire sourced section makes it appear you feel somehow threatened by that fact, and well sorced content. Your answers and personal feelings aside, removing the section does not change the fact this show is preserved into the National Archives of the United States Library of Congress television and film division. The holdings run from 1972 through 1994. Your edit is wrong as you have it dated from '72 to '86. Bob Dole put the tapes in the library, I verified it with his secretary by phone. No Sunday preachers or other churches programs are in the Congress Library Archives. No Joel Osteen, no Billy Graham, no Pat Robertson, no John Hagee, no Joe Tkach Junior, no TBN shows, or other Sunday church leaders tv programs are stored in the U.S. Archives. Only Garner Ted Armstrong and his dad Herbert W. Armstrong hosting THE WORLD TOMORROW. And, Garner Ted Aukerman, Robert Downey, Jr's cousin, found the Garner Ted Armstrong World Tomorrow tapes Bob Dole preserved into the archive collection, by a fluke? As Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating". You spend a great deal of time editing Wikipedia content and improving articles. Even on a national Holiday like Labor Day you were so busy editing Wikipedia. A day most take a break from working for a little R&R. But, in all these years of watching and editing this World Tomorrow page, you have not bother to included the program's title card photo like the title card photo uploaded for the Assange World Tomorrow Wikipedia page. "Odd, indeed". FastNLoud (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)FastNLoud[reply]

I do not now, nor have I ever lived in California (check a map, multiple US states exist on the west coast). I am not now, nor have I ever been associated with any of the churches you mentioned. I am not Werldwayd (talk · contribs) nor am I C.Fred (talk · contribs) - as I stated elsewhere, my one and only alternate account is Barek-public (talk · contribs), which is clearly linked to my account (I'll clarify it even further on my user page later today), and which has not been needed nor used since 2013, as it only exists for use when I login via a public computer so as to not use my admin password on a computer I do not control.
The well sourced fact that the episodes are archived in the Library of Congress has never been removed from the article, and to this day is still stated in the "Archived episodes" section of the article - although according to the Library of Congress website those recordings cover the period "from 1978 to 1983".[1] - so the article does need to be updated to match the existing source.
As to other content, it has been pointed out in past discussions: what are needed are reliable sources - not message board posts, not discussion forums, but sources that meet the criteria of being a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. Ignoring Wikipedia site policy and guidelines and edit warring in direct defiance of those policies and guidelines is what has resulted in multiple editors undoing those edits, as well as the series of account blocks and page protections.
If you disagree with how others interpret the reliable sourcing guideline, you have been pointed to the reliable source noticeboard. In the past, other IPs have also been directed to review the available resources for dispute resolution. If you believe you have evidence to support a claim of sockpuppetry, you have been pointed to make a report at sockpuppet investigations. If all you wish to do is to rant about imagined conspiracies, take it elsewhere - all future such nonsensical rants will be removed from this talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FastNLoud: You can request an image upload here. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 19:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlpearc: Thanks for providing that link too - perhaps someone else can get them to follow the correct processes. Various usernames claiming some affiliation to the program have attempted to upload the title card and other images in the past (both at commons and here). The title card keeps getting deleted from the commons by admins over there due to copyright issues. The uploaders have been advised how to resolve those concerns, but rather than following Wikipedia processes, their response has always been that someone here should call their offices. The last time it came up was discussed at ANI, which linked back to User talk:Barek/Archive 2016#Assange World Tomorrow title card VS Armstrong World Tomorrow title card upload where I stated "If the images can be uploaded and licensed properly, I could at that point assist with getting the images formatted correctly rather than in the broken format your named account was using." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Tomorrow

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Barek. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Media Edit to Portland Oregon

Hi Barek, We are a media company providing free content and resources for people looking to move to Portland. Just as there are links to the visitors website, we should also have links to a Portland Newcomer. Please reconsider our link to content. http://www.PortlandReloGuide.com / Portland Relocation Guide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.38.146 (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an internet directory. Per our guideline for US cities, there are specific types of external links appropriate for that section of city articles, specifically, "A link to some of the official websites should be provided here, such as the official city government, or the convention and visitors bureau." (per guideline) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latest zeitgeist sock

The latest sock of whoever the zeitgeist LTA is: user:Botofadooma Meters (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone else blocked the user last night while I was sleeping, but thanks for the spotting the sock, it's appreciated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request in October 2016

Without any real justification, User:Diannaa reverted all of my edits to Newburgh Raid. It appears they did so based on a mistaken and erroneous belief that the material was copyrighted by the Newburgh Museum [2]. First, the material on that site is released to the public domain under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. See the website's footer for proof. I know this is the case because I am a director with the Newburgh Museum and authored the material on that website which was used in the Wikipedia article. I authored it and allowed it to be posted on the museum's website solely on the condition that it could be used anywhere else, like Wikipedia. Therefore, the removal of my revisions were in error and I would kindly ask that you restore all of the edits.--YHoshua (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ideal location to discuss article content would be on the article talk page; or to address your concerns directly to the other editor on their talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I see this discussion was also taking place at User talk: Diannaa#Newburgh Raid, and now appears to be resolved in the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qumran Caves

While I can't say I hoped for my edit to go unnoticed, I am curious to know in what way my addition was either untrue or irrelevant. As events regarding the Qumran Caves unfold in the media(especially ones that involve well-known people) they should be documented in the corresponding Wikipedia page.Shiftyrye27 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. The material is a joke comment that is poorly sourced (using his own statement as the source, so "in the media" is being loosely interpreted in your statement above). Also, due to the history in the article of multiple editors having reverted similar material in the past and the replies given to existing edit requests on the article talk page, it's pretty clear that community consensus is against the addition of the material. Feel free to bring it up on the article talk page to try to sway consensus. If no one replies to your discussion on the article talk page, you could always initiate an WP:RFC request over there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Barek.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues

Hi Sir I want to ask a question.

I have made few contributions in wikipedia. I have fixed some broken links added some information. But I do not know when I see in contributions I have plus and negative points. What are they ?

How to be a successful editor please guide me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azam1993 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Azam1993: For the plus and minus signs in your contribution history, that is just an edit statistic showing the number of characters added or removed from the page during your edit.
For additional assistance, you can ask questions here; but I could be offline for days or even weeks at a time between replies. For faster responses, you may be better served by asking questions at either the Help desk (a help forum run by the community), or the New contributors' help page (for users that are new to Wikipedia), or at the Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Barek. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The World Tomorrow title card upload

Request to upload the current corresponding program title card for this Wikipedia page, per user Barek talk page instructions as follows:

For the title card, as I have stated in the past, if you can upload one appropriately, I can then assist inserting it into the article. The page being protected does not prevent uploading. First, it's important NOT to upload it to the Commons (where it has been uploaded in the past), that is a sister website to Wikipedia, and they have more stringent rules on copyright, for example, "Fair Use" of copyrighted content is not accepted over there - that is why prior uploads to Commons have been deleted by their admins.To upload, you were previously supplied with a link to WP:Files for upload and asked to follow the menus. I'll make it even simpler: if you have a logged-in account, from the prior link provided you can reach the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, fill out the fields, in section 3 select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." - in the box that comes up, say it's for use at "The World Tomorrow (radio and television)", and select the option for "This is the official cover art of a work.", select the drop-down to say it's the "Title screen of a TV program" and fill in the remaining fields, then click "Upload".If you get a message in that process saying you are unable to upload the image directly over there, or you find it too convoluted to follow; but you already have a screenshot saved somewhere on the web that someone else can upload for you, one of the menu paths would also get you to the request form at this link; in the fields provided, provide the URL, say it is for fair-use, list the article where it is to be used, and any other requested data on that form - then save.As I said, once an image is uploaded correctly, I can assist with inserting it into the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:THE_WORLD_TOMORROW.jpg Thank you. ---- worldtomorrowgta Worldtomorrowgta (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC Thank you, Barek! ---- worldtomorrowgta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldtomorrowgta (talk • contribs) 06:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out in the past, the Commons (which is a separate project from Wikipedia) does not accept copyrighted content. As explained on their guidance page, any content published to that site must be released under a free license that permits anyone anywhere to use, copy, modify, or to sell the image without giving notice to you. Is this your intent with the file upload?
Usually, copyrighted holders prefer to retain the legal ownership and choose not to release their copyrighted content under a licence that is compatible with uploading to the Commons. As a result, such content is usually uploaded directly to Wikipedia, and not to the Commons. On the page Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, there are links to both the "Commons Upload Wizard" (which uploads to the Commons), as well as the "Files for upload process" (which uploads to Wikipedia). On Wikipedia, full ownership of the copyright can be retained and permit use under a "Fair Use" clause of copyright law. My guess is that's your actual intent.
I realize this is a complex process, is a result of the complexities of copyright laws. Wikipedia provides a helpdesk where more assistance can be provided at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions - or you can ask for assistance at the generic Wikipedia:Help desk. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dollyparton7

You tagged this userpage as a possible sock puppet, but never added it to the investigation page. Are you going to update the page, or just leave it? Just curious as this editor is harassing me for blocking one of their IPs. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't planned to update the SPI at this time, just tagged for identifying; but of course others can update the SPI if they choose. I'll be offline for a couple days, so won't be able to participate in any discussions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* ... I just got back online, and I see the user is spiraling down the same path as the prior accounts. I'll update the SPI shortly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO

HELLO I M NEW HERE SO I DONT KNOW HOW TO USE OF THIS. PLS HELP I WANT TO BE WIKIPEDIA PAGE OF MAIN.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parulshukla1 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Parulshukla1: - I'm not certain I understand your goals clearly. I would suggest you review Help:Getting started, then if you require assistance, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Help desk or at Wikipedia:Teahouse. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My protection status

Thank you for the protection on my talk page. However, whoever this person is will return when it expires in a week. It has been this way for almost a year. Is it possible to extend it further to at least hold off on the inevitable vandalism coming up?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an existing SPI case? Do you know the sockmaster or original master sock? It appears the user has a large batch of sleeper accounts, which they're going through as each earlier account gets blocked. If there's an existing SPI, I want to ammend the ticket to search for additional sleeper accounts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of. However, Bishonen mentioned they were another "well-known" vandal here [3] so maybe she knows more. Note, that SPI case was unrelated to the accounts this person uses. All I know is they know exactly when my protection status expires and then there is a revert war until it is re-established. Personally, I don't see how it's worth the effort because they normally just state that the talk page is unprotected with a snarky comment.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belated Holiday Greetings! Barek

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a better place. Blessings. May we all have peace in the coming year. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frienship edition

Hi Barek, I am disappointed that my edition has been rejected. My edition contained the definition of "friendship" as defined in the Great Russian dictionary of Ozegov (the reference has been provided in the edition). You may wish to translate the definition to English. The original Wiki version did not contain the definition, neither there was any credible reference. It appeared rather speculative and shallow. My version also contained references to proverbs which is to demonstrate the meaning of the term in Russian tradition. While your message related to my violation of policies and marked as vandalism, I do not understand what in particular policy was violated. Can you provide a specific phrase which was deemed to violate the policy? regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.122.37 (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit of yours which I reverted did not have any references added by you. Instead, it contained brackets where references should exist (example: "The friendship in traditional Russian culture is destroyed by lucre which is illustrated by an ample of traditional Russian proverbs [46]"). And these were added while removing other existing refs that actually functioned. This gave the appearance that either you were attempting to fake refs in order to support a change, or that you were doing a copy/paste from another source. In either case, reverting that edit would be appropriate. I see now on the history tab for the page that you made a subsequent edit which added legitimate refs. I am not the editor who reversed that edit.
If you have an edit reverted, the best place to discuss that is on the talk page for the article (ex: Talk:Friendship), the talk page can be reached via the appropriate tab above the article. Continuing to attempt to restore your version without attempting to discuss the content can give the impression of edit warring, which could lead to an administrator temporarily blocking your account. If you instead discuss the edits on the talk page to gain consensus for the edit, the edit would both be less likely to be reverted as well as providing evidence that any disputes were resolved (ie: not edit warring over page content). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barek/Archive_2016&oldid=1139825929"