|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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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
Extend pc time? --George Ho (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- The additions are still coming in pretty regularly, so I added it back again, for a longer duration this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Is its own reference, look it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please see WP:N, which is Wikipedia's guideline on establishing a subject as notable. Also see WP:RS, which is Wikipedia's guideline for determining what qualifies as a reliable source on Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Excerpt from reccomended article
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources
The Story is a published source on Amazon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 7 April 2015
- Again, see WP:N. You need third-party reliable coverage to establish it as notable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Read WP:N. I could transcribe my latest phone call (or even copy the contents of this talk page) and publish it on Amazon. Doesn't mean it's notable. --NeilN talk to me 17:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Har har, very funny. But, Yes I see that, the direct quote is
...if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.
Except, the important part is the last bit, "separate article". The page "Story" is what I believe called a disambiguation page, which has numerous references of that key word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 7 April 2015
- For that, see WP:DISAMBIG. Disambiguation pages are to assist users in finding existing articles. It's not a place to advertise non-notable subjects. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Good point, I did notice the fact every bullet had a hyperlink. Well thanks for clearing that up! Hope I didn't take up too much time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Rvt user page edits
Hello, the edits you reverted on User:Jelly Bean MD were done in order to "close" the account following demand for global indefinite block due to compromised account during absence. Can you restore them? - thanks for your collaboration. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Demand on fr.wiki was kept for evidence: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Requête_aux_administrateurs#Demande_d.27auto_blocage --Histologyfreak (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- The account here is already blocked - their request at fr.wiki was to have their account blocked for personal reasons, no mention of a request to alter their user page. Even if they had, it would be very unusual for a request on fr to carry over to en. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Then how are they supposed to close their account without having access to wiki projects due to global block demand? --Histologyfreak (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- I see no evidence of a "global block demand", all you provided was a request to block their account on fr.wiki - no evidence whatsoever that it was a global demand, nor any indication that they wanted their userpage modified after their account was blocked. The account here is already blocked, that's all that's needed here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- That does not answer my question - but thanks for the unnecessary help! --Histologyfreak (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, it did answer it. Their account was "closed" when their account here was blocked. No modifying of their userpage is necessary to close an account - your assumption otherwise is in error. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for answering my question about being an admin. CakeMasterss (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- No problem - but if you have additional questions, you might get a quicker response at either WP:Help Desk or at WP:Teahouse. I'm happy to help too, but those resources have multiple people responding to questions - so response times are faster. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The Running Man
Back off. Right now. Read the info that's been added. These are perfectly valid citation tags that are being added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 13 April 2015
- It's a content dispute. Discuss the issue on the article talk page, and use the tools found at WP:dispute resolution if needed to develop consensus. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It's no wonder this place is hated so much. You feel big now? Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 April 2015
- It may also be beneficial for you to read WP:CIVIL, which is a Wikipedia site policy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It may be beneficial to not ban people for no reason. Anyhoo - gonna edit and link the plots to the book and the film so everyone can see there is no similarity. Good for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 April 2015
- You were blocked for making personal attacks (see this edit) after already being warned multiple times for your edit warring and adding personal commentary. Your new IP has now been blocked for block evasion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
You blocked Sthomas1114 indefinitely. I checked the user's edits and agree it's a vandal only account. Despite this I wonder if an indefinite block for what's probably a bored kid at a boarding school is a bit hard. Also I note the user was blocked without first getting a clear warning that further bad edits would lead to a block. Wikipedia used not to be hard like that. A few years ago a user like Sthomas1114 would have got a few warnings followed by a short block if vandalism continued. A short block is usually enough to deter casual vandals like Sthomas1114. May I remind you a user who's an immature kid now may a few years from now be, say a university student well able to edit Wikipedia constructively. I'm not an admin on Wikipedia but I'm an admin on several smaller wikis. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Given their behavior, I believe the block is appropriate. However, the user is welcome to submit an unblock request - and instructions to submit one are in the block notice on their talk page. I will not object if another admin chooses to offer them some rope by approving an unblock request from them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Protection of the Criticism of the Federal Reserve Page
Please be aware that the person (Volunteer Marek) that asked you to protect that page is clueless and acts to change pages to conform to him unsubstantiated view of reality. A plainly obvious example of this is that he continues to change the Milton Friedman page to the effect that Milton Friedman's opinion that the Federal Reserve should be abolished was a one time thing when in fact it was a long held belief, from at least the 1970's to the time of his death.
In this video Friedman states that Friedman gave this opinion to Arthur Burns who served as Fed Chairman in the 70's. The video used as a cite in the article in from decades after and states the same thing. Obviously it was not a one time statement and in fact spanned decades.
In the Federal Reserve page he keeps deleting criticism that the Fed caused the inflation of the 70's. That criticism is so mainstream and widespread that the cite used, is a paper in a Federal Reserve publication. Its likely the economist who wrote that paper works or has worked for the FED.
I request that you unprotect Criticism of the Federal Reserve page and further take some action against Marek. Banning would be nice. A prohibition against editing any pages involving economists and economics would also be nice, since he plainly thinks he KNOWS things when in fact he is either deluded, or clueless.
Any helpful action on your part would be welcome.220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- No one asked me to protect the article - I saw a large revert, looked at article history, and based on what I saw I protected the article so the obvious dispute could be resolved on the article talk page.
- Please review WP:DR for suggestions on how to resolve content disputes and to reach consensus. Also, remember to discuss content, not contributors. Several of your recent posts appear to contain WP:NPA violations - I will be placing a warning on your current IP page. Looking at the article and talk page history, I see my only previous edits (in 2012 and 2013) were to redact personal attacks from two IPs that were also in the 71.174.x.x range - one of which I blocked due to the repeated personal attacks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The Freecycle Network
Barek, Hi, I'm the executive director of The Freecycle Network and there are several outdated / inaccurate statements about our organization under "Freecycle" as well as the mark misuse being listed as "freecycling." I can provide links to the registered marks in various countries but beyond that there really aren't references. How shall I proceed? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Deron Beal
- As for the link to the "freecycling" article, that's an entirely appropriate link to a related Wikipedia article, and appropriately belongs in the "See also" section as a related subject.
- For outdated content, the material you are blanking is all sourced to third-party reliable sources. If that content is outdated, you will need new sources - it's related to our site policy on verifiability, which states (in part): "people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there BAREK, from Portugal,
situation seemingly out of control, and it used to be much worse. This Colombian IP used to be User:Xxxx693 and also User:Lombriz de Aguapuerca. Several users (not just me) told him politely that "Quique Flores" sufficed as name for this WP and that he was wrong (please see more details in Mr. Flores' talkpage and in Xxxx's one). The result? Attacks to me and just myself, personal - vile as can be at that! - or just "tactic" (i.e. destroying the user/talk page, I used to be User:AlwaysLearning, have been here for almost nine years).
Now, this "person" seems to be more calm, only insults me through the edit summaries, much appreciated (and now, maybe, he will also call me a crybaby for this message I now send you, like he did so many times in the past). Happy editing. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Recently, there has been a group of IP adresses that have only been seen on select articles with the intention of vandalizing them with very minute, discreet edits, such as date changes. I believe this is only one editor who has a lot of free time on his or her hands, and wishes to compromise the quality of Wikipedia. This IP editor (hopper) is persistent, has likely been vandalizing Wikipedia for years, and has publicly stated his or her intentions here, enraging another good samaritan, User:Tom Danson. I filed a report concerning the IP hopping. The only solution that has been taken is the WP:S-P bandaid on some of the related articles of Utica, New York which is good, but only slows the hemorrhage. Please help, because the only solution I see is a full-blown range block. How this can be accomplished, I'm not entirely sure, but I know I can provide you with the pertinent information needed to help bring this years-long issue to rest. Buffaboy talk 21:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with a range block is it can impact a large number of innocent editors in addition to the vandal. If you have a list of the IP numbers involved, I can look at how big of a range would be required and review edits by other IPs within that range to see how extensive of an impact such a range block might cause. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'll try and compile a list. Buffaboy talk 22:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I saw there was at least a partial list in the ANI report - from that, it looks like multiple ranges may be involved. I'll need to review each range separately to see if range blocks are possible without causing secondary disruption. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Update I saw the bombshell (at least to me) you dropped that an IP is registered to a government entity?
- In the meantime I am scouring through these articles and collecting IPs to help make this as seamless as possible. Buffaboy talk 22:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I was surprised to see that too, so I checked a second tool to verify. But, just because it's a city IP address, doesn't mean it is a city employee. If they make public wifi available in city government buildings, then it could be anyone who happened to be in one of those buildings at the time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I see.
- Well, my audit is done, and I believe I have the list right here. You'll find that there is a huge correlation with the 32.xxx IPs and the corresponding edits in that they all seem to have the same tone using words like "grammar," "spelling," and minor fix to try and fool editors that they are insignificant edits. If someone doesn't recognize the IPs they could take the summaries as face value and not check the diff. He uses the same edit summaries like this, this, and here. The guy has a brand.
- The 67.xxx range seems to be neutral as far as vandal activity goes.
- I caught him in the act too on Utica Memorial Auditorium since I last contacted you.
- A bonus, though the user hasn’t edited in a long time, I am extremely suspicious of him or her: User:CutThruTheNoise. Buffaboy talk 23:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- After a review, I don't believe a range block is possible in this situation. Most of those IPs are managed by AT&T wireless; blocking those would have a large impact to other uninvolved editors. Unfortunately, this means blocking one at a time as they are spotted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)