User talk:Barneca

Return of a pesky editor

Hi, sorry to bother you, I know you're busy, but an IP editor you blocked for a month (User:72.14.117.122) because he or she was posting American Film Institute information to film articles that was badly formatted, and refused to talk about the problems on their talk page, has completed the block and is doing exactly the same thing again. I've posted a note on their talk page, pointing out what the problems are, but there's been no response as of yet. if you get a moment, do you think you could take a look, I'd appreciate it. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 22:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Reblocked for 6 months. Just as last time, I'll unblock as soon as they start to discuss. I'm wondering if there isn't some kind of personal issue with this person, where they would rather not edit than talk with others. If so, that's a shame, but then Wikipedia isn't really the right forum for them. --barneca (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to have caught at just the right time. Thanks. (And I agree with your comment to the IP editor in the block message -- I don't expect him or her to jump when I say to, just to talk about the problems I see.) Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 00:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So, I was trying to do all this crap "on your behalf", but apparently you aren't as "offline" as you pretend. Good to see you around myspacer. Keeper ǀ 76 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm around-ish; still liable to disappear suddenly for days at a time. Been back on and off since Labor Day weekend. What crap have you been dealing with on my behalf? I'll try to help out where possible. Thanks, whatever it is. I tried to look at AN and ANI and RFAR to catch up, but it appears everyone has gone completely insane in my absence, with established editors desysoped, blocked, and retiring left and right. --barneca (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

with established editors desysoped, blocked, and retiring left and right -- this is news to you? This is new? It's everyday. Fuckme this place needs a good long winter to f***ing cool off. We are so full of ourselves. I didn't do anything (yet) on your behalf, this was to be my first interception. You are blazing fast. Your usertalk is watchlisted (as evidenced by my post in the next thread), and will continue to be, if only for the entertainment factor. Be well -- Keeper ǀ 76 22:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I mean, more insane than usual. And I'm not blazing fast, Ed just caught a break and I'm on right now. Please feel free to help me out if it looks like I'm not around; it could be a long while until I return. --barneca (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Don't leave. You are sane. And funny. And probably, based on my first two impressions, incredibly good looking. Ah, yes, I can picture you now....be right back....ah, refreshed. Yes. Very good looking. (disturbed yet??? This post, right here, will sink any future chance of an RFB for keeper, heh.). Do what you need to do to make a paycheck and support your family , and then come back and block the fools/POVs/cranks/bastards/SPAs. I heart Barneca. And yes, Wikipedia is more insane than usual, in a sense, except that insanity is now the "usual", so perhaps, when things are quiet, we can accurately say that "things are more sane than usual". Do you want me to list tha-shit, or will you be able to find it yourself? Keeper ǀ 76 22:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Found it myself. Already made a comment at RFAR (which is semi-rare for me). p.s. you've got an orange bar yourself. --barneca (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC) The message on your talk page is just to keep you distracted while I look up the "creepy stalker guy" hotline of my local police dept. --barneca (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL and goodnight! And thanks for the "relief" you provided a few posts ago. See you this weekend. And I'm off! Keeper ǀ 76 23:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments to User_Talk:Simon Bar Sinister

First off, Don't you ever make threats against me ever again! I did nothing to you to warrant you posting a threatening remarks in my talk page, second if they are violating the 3RR or vandalizing a Wikipedia page I am going to report them! Third and finally they are wrong but the Wikipedia Admins are either too stupid or just too ignorant to realize this. Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

When 3 other editors, and 5 other admins (probably more; I'm just counting the ones at WP:AIV, I think there are others at WP:AN3), all disagree with you, please consider the slight possibility that you just might possibly be a teeny tiny bit wrong about it yourself. --barneca (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

god. have fun, barn. Keeper ǀ 76 22:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. It was getting tiresome fixing his handiwork. We get into this throughout the Walt Disney World Resort family of articles, and we feel we have reached a good idea to have these articles flow into each other. However, as you've seen, we still get people who, while probably at their core editing in good faith, don't seem to be able to work with the group. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yeah, based on his previous contributions, I'm sure he's editing in good faith. I'm hoping he gains a little perspective. I make no judgement on whether he's right or not about the actual content dispute, but he was clearly going overboard. When he returns, do me a favor and continue discussing with him on the talk page as long as he's remaining civil, but if he starts edit warring again, a report to WP:AN3 will probably do the trick. --barneca (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll do my best. To make a (way too) long story short, the consensus among the WDW editors is that the main article will discuss the various municipalities associated with this massive development. Then, the theme park articles, resort hotels, etc., all reference back to the parent WDWR article (i.e. "Theme Park X is an amusement park located in the Walt Disney World Resort.") To paraphrase an old movie line, "I'll be nice until it's time to not be nice." Thanks again, especially with helping to illustrate all the tools we editors have if we hit a trouble spot. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the IP block

here. S/he clearly isn't going to get it. TravellingCari 03:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. It was my last official act before taking my leave for the evening. G'night. --barneca (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sleep well! I figured I'd let someone else handle this step of the blocking. I have no doubt we'll be up to 6 months shortly TravellingCari 04:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

IRC

I would like to point out that the discussion on IRC was nearly unanimously discouraging MZM from taking that action. Phrases like "Don't do it!" and "That would be wheel warring, and there is a special arbcom restriction" where said. This was not a decision made on IRC, it was made by MZM against the urges of his peers on IRC. So please don't let this incident color your view of IRC, remember you get only second and third hand accounts about what happens there and they are often bias. Chillum 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, as you know, I wasn't there, so I have no idea what was actually said. I certainly hope the discussion went as you say. But I at least stand by my newfound theory that no one should ever refer, on-wiki, to "consensus on IRC" as a justification for any action, and I think anything beyond just informally bouncing ideas of one another (i.e. planning with other admins on a course of action on-wiki) shouldn't happen. If you want to chat with people and think out loud with others, I can't and shouldn't stop you, any more than I can stop people emailing each other. But it is a big weakness that I can't see logs of these discussions. Deciding on my overall opinion of IRC should wait until my dander isn't quite so high up. But it does seem that a pretty high proportion of bad decisions get made after a discussion there. --barneca (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not see anyone claiming there was a consensus on IRC, did I miss that? As far as I know IRC was only tangentially involved in that the people there gave the same opinion as on wiki. The only people encouraging the action held the same opinion on wiki as well, same with those(the majority) who discouraged the act. Chillum 20:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The original description of the discussion by MBisanz was that there was a "my consensus is bigger than your consensus" type arguement. As I've admitted, I don't know what was actually said; it sounds like you're saying that's not what happened, I have no reason to doubt you. Still, if that didn't actually happen after all in this particular case, I've seen it used in other situations before. And it highlights (at least to me) the problem of not being able to know for sure who actually said what on IRC. --barneca (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well there is always e-mail, or skype or any other means of talking. The fact is people can talk in private and you will not know for sure what they said, they just have to go on what they do and say on-wiki. Chillum 21:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

• Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
• Your contributions are also welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hayleyjubilee

Thanks for taking the time to properly welcome Hayleyjubilee (talk · contribs). I left a message for Nsaa (talk · contribs) asking them to AGF and to be more cautious about labelling new users as vandals. I was about to leave a message for Hayleyjubilee explaining WP:COI and WP:N, but it looks like you beat me to it. Cheers, caknuck _° is geared up for football season 19:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

To be totally honest, there have been times when I would probably have gone Nsaa's route; but lately I'm feeling more sympathy than usual for new editors who are trying to figure out how this place works, and who suddenly get absolutely bombarded by warnings and templates and CSD notices and threats. We don't really give new people time to think. Haley's latest edit was to remove the redlinks to her deleted articles from the article that survived, which I took as a sign she was trying her best. We'll see. Thanks for the thanks. --barneca (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As I told Nsaa, I've jumped the gun with templating the new editors in the past, too. (It's especially easy with Twinkle, with the automated warnings & reports to AIV.) I also saw her remove the redlinks after I deleted those two articles -- which were pretty clear cut G11 and A7 CSDs -- so it looks like she's picking up on things pretty quickly. (This place does have a pretty intimidating learning curve.) Let me know if I can help out with anything else. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 22:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hoping I'll catch you when you're still around...

There's another editor with similar problems to the ones I've talked to you about before. This person, User:Granpuff, has never used edit summaries as far as I can see, on 2000 edits, marks every edit as "minor" (except one, quite recently), and the only response I and other editors have gotten so far is a one line remark about being new. If you get a chance, could you take a look at their talk page and see if you can help get this person to start communicating - or do you think I'd be better off taking it to WP:AN? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed. You've got two choices: go to WP:AN/ANI, or wait until late in the day for me to take a look. I'm around, and have a Wikipedia tab open, and I may edit here and there today when I have little 2 minute windows available to me, but won't have time to look into anything more complicated than a 2 minute vandal blocking until about 20:00 UTC. --barneca (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no great hurry. If you get to it, and can deal with it in your window of opportunity, that's fine. If not, I'll procede. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 15:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If I see you haven't done anything at ANI yet when I break free, I'll take a look. --barneca (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I left my by-now-standard screed (I should make it a template) at their talk page. Please let me or any other admin know if it doesn't work. --barneca (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - yes a template would certainly save time. Sorry to be such a pest, I don't know why I keep coming across uncommunicative editors. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 22:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why I'm moving this to the bottom of the page, instead of blanking it, is beyond me

HEY YO MAN I SORRY FO DA PULLED PORK SHIZZ IN THE CIVIL ENGINEERING ARTICLE. I firmly regret that you had to waste precious moments of your life to remedy my childish mistakes. I WAS TRYIN TO WIN THE WIKIPEDIA RACE GAME (LOOK IT UP I THINK THERES A ARTICLE ON IT MAYBE) AND I TYPED PULLED PORK AS A LINK SO I COULD GET TO IT FASTER. Rather clever if I do say so myself. Anyhoo sorry for the trouble, my deepest condolences for any grief you may be harboring over that fiasco.

Hugs and Kisses Schmapyrap (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

PS SARAH PALIN IS HOT

Goodcaanod

Apologies for putting a speedy on the above, I genuinely thought that it was nonsense but can see now that it is quite legitimate. Regards Paste (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I was a few seconds away from deleting it as nonsense myself, when I finally realized what they were trying to say. --barneca (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Rouge, moi?

Gahhhh. Please don't call me that. If you followed the hideous UCFD wars over that category, you'd know how much I hate that description. (wry grin) Horologium (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended; I haven't followed any UCFD wars. In any case, it was used sarcastically, which always works perfectly well on the internet. At least I didn't link it... --barneca (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, upon further review of my comment there, I was evidently referring to User:Horolgium, not to you... --barneca (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the change, and the correction on my name. It's amazing how often it's misspelled, but I suppose it's my fault for choosing a Latin name. (grin) FWIW, I recognized the humor, which was why I included the wry grin in the original. It's just a sore subject for me, and my reaction to further discussion on that cat was the impetus for a question at my RFA. Horologium (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Your friend

I don't think you actually read the facts. He has been harassing ME! Honestly, what did I do to deserve these warnings and even the threat of being blocked ? Please, tell me. EDIT: Sorry, you can remove this section. I was not aware you were watching my user page and I see no other way to contact people on this site. I would remove it, but is that vandalism? Jeffason (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind leaving it here, but yes, let's continue this on your talk page. --barneca (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, your post on his talk page makes it seem like I am harassing him. That is definitely unjust and defamatory. Also, you never answered my question if it is vandalism to remove this post from your talk page. This whole thing is quite ridiculous. If you really want to know the timeline of events you maybe can find my email in my account, and contact me there.Jeffason (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, let's continue this on your talk page; I just posted a big long screed there. --barneca (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for help

Thank you for help in the issue between me and Jeffason. I appreciate the comments about how I can better deal with this in the future. Best regards, --Ekologkonsult (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Who needs a [Show preview] button...

Sorry, I just had to do it! – ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

unblock/reblock of User:71.7.163.42

I hope you don't mind that I unblocked this user, then re-blocked him for a period of a month. This is a returning vandal I've been dealing with for months who returns immediately after a block expires to vandalize the same articles. He seems to have a grudge against Shooter Jennings,Waylon Jennings, and Jessi Colter, just to name a few. No one else from the blocked IPs ever requests a good-faith unblock, so I've started hitting them with a month at a time. Let me know if that caused any problems for you. Joyous! | Talk 23:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. --barneca (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Comments

I would just like to personally thank you for your comments to Seicer after his abuse, as well as all the helpful information you provided concerning my page 'Firestarter Mini Monster (Truck)', my first attempt at an article as you correctly assumed. You have been one of the only helpful administrators I have encountered, and were indeed the only administrator who forwarded my deleted page after several requests to several different individuals. I was indeed ready to dismiss Wikipedia due to what happened when creating my first page, but due to your kindness, I will be posting the page again after the truck debuts. Thank you once again, you are truly an asset to Wikipedia! Kildare2 (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and you're welcome. --barneca (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the block on this mope. I'm reminded of "Alien Nation" & what Sykes sounded like... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 12:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, although I'm a tad confused by your movie reference... --barneca (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Stalker

Nothing else to say, really. Stalker. Keeper ǀ 76 23:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No cake for you! --barneca (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I heart cake!!! And soup!!!! And Nazis!!! ( shit, that last one is gonna come back and bit me in the ass...dammit........Keeper ǀ 76 23:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

XD

Ok, I just got to say, this tops my list of best AN/ANI posts ever! :P Tiptoety ^talk 03:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was inspired by the refreshing change. --barneca (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For this hysterically and sarcastically accurate discription of the way ANI is, I hearby award you this barnstar. Sometimes, even in ANI, it's good to laugh :) Keep up the good work! - NeutralHomer • Talk 03:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fourth time's the charm! Thanks, Neutralhomer, I love getting these things. Not everyone appreciates my sense of humor, glad to see you're one of the enlightened ones. --barneca (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, you deserve it. :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, OK, you're enlightened too. --barneca (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Were you serious in your pledge to block the familiar handful of editors who were reinserting polling data at Barack Obama? If so, get busy. :) In fact, I'd have done it myself, but I was irritated enough with the blatant disregard for consensus and policy that I went ahead and removed the offending paragraph. I do feel that administrative action is appropriate, and these accounts are not exactly first-time offenders, but since I've officially intervened in the content arena I'll pass this on to you to review. MastCell ^Talk 20:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Properly warned about the special sanctions back in August, and did it anyway, so yes this one was an easy decision. I have a feeling, however, that I am quickly going to regret putting that page on my watchlist... --barneca (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, I really appreciate your comment on my talk page. Also, the post mentioned in the barnstar a few sections up made me laugh. Thingg^⊕⊗ 22:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And let me add my thanks for your support. Not to turn this into a love-fest, but it's nice to see someone else is paying attention and providing a bit of a sanity check.  Frank  |  talk  22:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thingg, glad to see your note on your user page was short-lived; this place is imperfect, and I hope this hasn't got you too upset. Chin up, head high. --barneca (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Curious bystander

Please note that the editor you recently blocked, Curious bystander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has returned to the article following his block to apply an NPOV tag[1], incite user on the talk page,[2] and file an inflamatory featured article review here. That's about the most disruptive thing he could have done. He is clearly an WP:SPA devoted to disparaging Obama. A number of us think he is likely a sock - if you look at the early edit history he jumped into edit warring on Obama in a way that suggests knowledge of process here, immediately after registering an account, and shares editing patterns in common with a couple other accounts that were banned or determined to be likely sockpuppets. There are some specific edits that are suspicious as well. Wikidemon (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And now he is making personal attacks as well. Grsz^talk 00:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to think about this for a little while; it isn't cut and dried. I am aware of the situation. If another admin acts one way or the other first, fine. If not, I'll act one way or the other after I've had a think. Could be tomorrow; Wikipedia time is limited this evening. However, civility is going to start, from everyone, NOW. --barneca (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've spent quite some time reviewing CB's edit history. At this point, I have very grave doubts about whether that FAR was filed in good faith or not. However, because it is not clear to me whether an FAR is actually appropriate at this time (it very well might be, even if filed in bad faith), I'm declining to call this another obvious instance of disruption and topic ban CB. I'm not terribly happy with this decision, because I think the pattern of his behavior strongly suggests an attempt to game the system, but the actual act of filing the FAR is simply not clear-cut enough. It would end up as a long, long thread at ANI, and I can nearly guarantee there would end up not being a consensus either way, and I have neither the time, the desire, or the inclination to get involved in that. Also, I may not be online much of tomorrow, so it seems unwise to ban and run; I'd want to stick around and defend my actions. Better to wait and see if any other problems occur, at which time I would reconsider. If another admin reads this differently and imposes a topic ban, I won't lose any sleep, but I'm not going to do it myself.

Wikidemon, as to your suspicions of sockpuppetry, have you filed a WP:SSP report? If not, I do not have time to look into such allegations quickly, but if you email me more specific information regarding the "shared editing patterns in common with other banned accounts", I'd be willing to look at it at a slower pace. --barneca (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It will take considerable work to put together. A while ago I started collecting some evidence offwiki so as not to give anything away. There were numerous sockpuppet reports regarding a cluster of meatpuppeting editors back in June or July, and several editors blocked (although one in particular was not). CB began around that period and is clearly not sincere about who he is and why he is editing. I don't recall that CB has ever been named in a sock report, although a number have noticed that the initial edits were quite suspicious. If the problem persists I may take the time to put together something. Wikidemon (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand. In my short 2 hour review, I found no smoking gun; of course, I didn't know what to look out for. If obvious problems continue (blatant name calling, edit warring), I can do something, but I'm no better equiped to deal with subtle attacks and what has been called "civil POV-pushing" than anyone else (probably worse equiped, as I haven't waded into this type of thing before). I'm also not sure how often I'll be online. --barneca (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations - you have made my list of favorite Wikipedia diffs.[3] I think we can all agree that this is the crowning laurel in your fine Wikipedia career.--Kubigula (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Crowning laurel"? So, it's all downhill from here? --barneca (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid so, but you've had a good run.--Kubigula (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

:) --barneca (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility

Hi there. I recently quoted you at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Discussion of civility at recent Request for Arbitration. Would you have time to check that I haven't misrepresented what you said? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied on Carch's talk. --barneca (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Various edit warring/POV warriors on Bill Ayers/Barack Obama/Weatherman Underground related pages

Hey, while you are taking a look at Curious Bystander could you also also take a look at some of the other editors who have been edit warring for a significant time and see what can be done? If you cannot, could you maybe recommend another admin to step in and take a look at the various behaviors? I ask this because as time moves on these editors will continue to ratchet up their warring to push their POV's. If you want/need to know more please contact me and I'll be glad to give you more information. Thanks for whatever you can do to help. Brothejr (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid all I'll be able to do is keep an eye on the article occasionally, only as often as I get online. I'm not the Cavalry, I'm just another set of eyes. I'm not going to actually look into CB's edit history my self more than I already have; I've just said if edit warring continues from any quarter, I'll act to stop it. But I don't plan on spending any time looking at past edit warring. --barneca (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all I could ever ask of you. Thanks again for keeping an eye on the situation. Brothejr (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem

Hi, Barneca. No, I don't have any problem with either your block or redrumracer or your criticism of my block of Thingg. Indeed, upon reflection I've decided that the Thingg block was a mistake on my part, and I've apologized to him. The only reason I hadn't edited after that block was that I had some real-life stuff come up — my silence had nothing to do with your block! Don't worry — all's well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, all's well that ends well. --barneca (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I second that.  Frank  |  talk  00:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sawston

Hello Barneca,

I put this on yesterday and then realised I'd put this under some else's text. Hopefully, this time I've managed to create a new section.

I just wanted to say that I really don't want to contribute to the Sawston discussion any more. I don't agree with Pete Myers comments, or the tone in which he says it - but the discussion could go on and on. I genuinely didn't mean to make him defensive - I was flagging up an inconsistency. If CCSC are CofE, then imho I would suggest going to the Ely Diocese and respectfully asking them to update their website, which is possibly all it is. Anything I say will automatically be undermined by Pete Myers, who has to have the final word, and this isn't a discussion, it is talking to a blank wall with their own agenda.

I knew someone ages ago who was converted to christianity by an evangelical church, who ended up committing suicide. I know what the minister of CCSC has said, I know that some of the things he has said are not true, I know that it was because of him that the previous incumbent resigned, and I know that the whole business has left a lot of scars, and this is extremely sad. CCSC, and Pete Myers is typical of the attitude and culture, tend to be very polarised. All the elders, like PeteMyers, are in their mid 20s or early 30s. There is much that is preached about guilt and judgement and going to hell etc, some of which I've found very frightening. They seem to set less store by treating people with respect and understanding. Knowing them as I do, I can see that they could potentially do quite a lot of damage to people, especially if they are vulnerable. Guilt can do an awful lot of damage. There are other fundamentalist churches which, whilst they also are anti homosexuality etc, are slightly more open and compassionate and less polarised. It is my POV, and I make no apologies for this, that anyone engaging with CCSC needs to be extremely careful - and this is why I think it is so important that the page should not be used for evangelical purposes, and that it shouldn't be biased.

However, whether or not this should be the subject for a Wikipedia discussion I don't know. Maybe PeteMyers just likes computers and genuinely wasn't trying to advertise CCSC or be evangelical. PeteMyers doesn't say why he objects to the 'sect'. If you look up the definition of the word 'sect' - http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sect - it says it is a subdivision of a larger group and a dissenting clique - and I don't see what the difficulty is with that, because they do criticise other church members and churches who they regard as 'liberal'.

I did feel that some of his comments were a bit unfair and a bit underhand - like the constant reference to being verifiable, and 'thank you for finally engaging' , saying I didn't respond until he threatened to speak to the administrators, etc. I don't think he is entirely honest of factual when he makes his points

I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia, as you have probably realised. I apologise if this has put you in a difficult situation. I would have liked to have sent a private message but don't know how to - so if this is inappropriate in accordance with Wikipedia rules then please delete it. Anyway, thank you for your intervention and the work you do. I think that is probably more than enough said! Best wishes Barneca, Cuckoosnest (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC) 11:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Cuckoosnest, 5pm, September 20th 2008.

Hello Cuckoosnest,

Just wanted you to know that I've seen this thread exists, but I have to go back offline now. I haven't forgotten you, and I'll re-read and reply when I get a chance. --barneca (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, some disorganized comments:

• It appears CCSC is indeed part of the CoE. I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of diocese, parishes, etc., so I can't explain why it shows up on some lists for Sawston and not others, but I went to http://www.ely.anglican.org/about/structured/deaneries/parishes.html, which at the bottom links to http://www.achurchnearyou.com/, which, when you type in sawston, gives http://www.achurchnearyou.com/result.php?query=sawston&type=place, which lists CCSC as a CoE church. If you want to contest this assertion, you'll need to come up with a competing reliable source to even get the discussion started.
• Most of the rest of what you're saying doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. As unfamiliar as you are with Wikipedia, I'm even less familiar with any intranecine arguments in the Anglican church. But what I do know is that the arguments don't belong in the Sawston article. It's entirely possible you and I share a general opinion on socially conservative churches. But in this case, see WP:BATTLE (we love to refer to policy around here by lame shorthand); Wikipedia is not a place to fight, even if you're on the Side of Good^TM.
• There are probably dozens of internet forums out there somewhere where this kind of discussion would be encouraged and welcome and useful. But Wikipedia is not that place.
• Regardless of the dictionary definition of "sect", reality is that being called a sect implies a bad connotation, and I am not surprised PeteMyers took umbrage.
• I would not worry about comments PeteMyers has made about you, or comments you have made about him. There seems to be quite a history here, and even though I don't know (or care) exactly what it is, I'm smart enough not to take anything you two say about each other on faith. In any case, with the article in the state it's in now (a simple list of churches), I don't know what else you two have to disagree about.
• If this has stressed you out, please consider contributing to articles about which you don't have strong feelings. I've found that if you do that, Wikipedia becomes less stress-inducing, and more stress-relieving.
• I think I hit all the high points, let me know if you still have questions. --barneca (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm absolutely fine with that Barneca, thank you for giving such a complete and fair reply, I appreciate it. This discussion has upset me, because I just felt that dishonest tactics were being used, but I don't want to, or think it would be wise to contribute any more to the Wikipedia article on Sawston! Thank you very much Barneca for your time and your comments. Best wishes, Cuckoosnest (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Cuckoosnest, September 22nd, 2008, 7.20 pm.

You're welcome, hope to see you around on some other, completely unrelated, articles sometime. --barneca (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there's now a lot of stuff being said about *me* by this person. Hmmmm. I've had it with Wikipedia. Petemyers (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you mean here on my talk page, I'm inclined to allow a pretty wide latitude to people posting here; I suppose if it truly bothers you, let me know and I'll archive it early. If you mean elsewhere, please point out to me where. If I understand right, all three of us have, for about a week, agreed that the article should look like it does now. Why are you two still arguing? --barneca (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Barneca... I'm not arguing. Before the Sawston article was protected, I had reported Cuckoosnest twice, and had been calling him/her to a conversation on the talk page. You said that I was edit warring, but I decided not to argue with that. Then Cuckoosnest left lots of claims about people and organisations on the talk page, which really shouldn't be there, and you decided to leave them archived - I haven't argued with that. But I'm not entirely happy with those decisions. Cuckoosnest has left a load of comments on my talk page, and now put a load of stuff about me here. This person seems to have some sort of grudge against the church I work for, and all I've done is try to stop POV claims about that being dumped on Wikipedia, if they can't go in an article, they seem to wind up somewhere else. If I've done something wrong, Barneca, I'm sorry... I'm fine with the article, it's just constantly seeing these sorts of claims that I'm fed up with... I realise you're probably fed up of this discussion - I can guarantee I'm more fed up with this than you are. Petemyers (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have another word with him. You should feel free to remove anything on your own user talk page. This should be dying down now. --barneca (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, sorry but I'm just, well, fed up! Petemyers (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In brief - message understood, thank you & best wishes, Cuckoosnest (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)cuckoosnest, 24th Sept 2008, 6.52pm

RE:Padillah AN/I

Warn away. At this point I just don't give a shit. If you feel this user is allowed to treat me this way then ... I have no idea how to finish this statement because it is incomprehensible to me that this is acceptable behavior. I see no indication whatsoever that Softlavender will even be spoken to about this. Boy I've got to find out how I can plug my ears to discussion and make attacks on someones mental state and get away with it. Block me, ban me, whatever. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I was doing my school work, involving the article Barack Obama. I happened to view the article right as User:Zach99 made that vandalism. I appreciate you blocking him; nothing worse than trying to work on school and see that. So thanks. Thanks and Happy Editing ⊥m93 TALK 17:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. A word of warning: that page gets hit with a lot of vandalism, some of it quite subtle. So... well, just check anything you read in there twice. --barneca (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice. I just hated the fact that I was doing a report for school and saw THAT. Some people. But anyway... thank you for your advice. As many people as there are that hate him, I can't say I'm surprised. Thanks and Happy Editing! ⊥m93 (TALK) 20:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

John McCain vs. raising the Minimum Wage

Why don't you want people to know that John McCain voted 19 times against raising the [[Minimum Wage? I think they have a right to know. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Because you're spamming it all over multiple inappropriate pages. Like I told you, I've left it on the McCain page, but for example putting in on the September 18 page is clearly disruptive, and you've been around here long enough to know that, so please don't insult my intelligence by pretending you think it's OK. Stop it. Now. --barneca (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings!

barneca (talk) Hello my friend, I am back, and wrote a new article, [4] which could benefit from your taking a look, if you have time, to make sure I formatted it correctly. (I am getting better on formatting issues, but still need help!) Hope you are well...JohninMaryland (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a refreshing change from my normal duties as a "wiki fascist police harraser". My time is limited until the weekend, but I'll look it over then, or Monday. A very brief perusal looks good, I did notice you're missing the US from the belligerents section of the infobox. Good to see you back. --barneca (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Done (used as a procrastination tool). --barneca (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

barneca (talk) Hello again my friend! It is good to be back, and Thanks for the extremely prompt help on the article! Take care! JohninMaryland (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban

Unlike many other Wikipedians, I do not have the time to homestead here, so I missed your notice. I also notice that several of the editors who have been pushing like bulldozers to eliminate criticism from Barack Obama instantly supported your topic ban. MastCell said it was a borderline case. You have yourself admitted that the alleged personal attacks were borderline cases. (If I'm getting a topic ban for saying "misrepresentation," why isn't Scjessey also getting a topic ban for using that word first?) In general, despite my unswerving support for Obama I find that many others here (unlike myself) have miserably failed to check their biases at the door, and they WP:OWN the article. Curious bystander (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)