User talk:Barek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
35px}} Barek is busy in real life and will have less time available for online activities, including Wikipedia, which may result in slower responses to queries.
Please click here to start a new message at the bottom of this page.
Notice
Wall clock.jpg Server time (update):
April 20, 2014 23:17 (UTC)


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.
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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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

How to cite a TV episode?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) - 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 (talkcontribs) - 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 (talkcontribs) - 04:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr. CAP[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) - 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) - 15:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
For the record, it was this guy. Tertius51 (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Bundy standiff[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) - 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 (talkcontribs) - 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 (talkcontribs) - 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 (talkcontribs) - 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 (talkcontribs) - 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 (talkcontribs) - 04:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)