User talk:Barek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Please click here to start a new message at the bottom of this page.
Notice
Please note:
This talk page is known to be monitored by talk page watchers. This means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot respond to quickly is appreciated.
Wall clock.jpg Server time (update):
September 17, 2014 21:49 (UTC)
purge cache
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barek.


My talk page archives
Replacement filing cabinet.svg
 • 2007  • 2008  • 2009
 • 2010  • 2011  • 2012
 • 2013  • 2014

Seneca College IP[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) - 03:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Russell Wilson[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) - 14:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That Arabic page[edit]

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? --benlisquareTCE 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 (talkcontribs) - 17:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

page deletion due to personal attack[edit]

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)[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) - 18:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)