User talk:Barek

Barek is tired of wikidrama, and has chosen to spend more time in the real world; but may still wander back online occasionally. During this time, replies to queries may be greatly delayed.

Please click here to start a new message at the bottom of this page.
	If you post a message to me here, I will usually reply here - if you want a {{talkback}} notice, please request it. If I left a message for you on your talk page, I have it on my watchlist and will see replies made on your talk page. Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right at my discretion to remove uncivil comments from this page, as well as threads which are perceived by me to be disruptive. My alternate talkpage can be used to contact me if Wikipedia indicates that this page is protected due to vandalism.	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. Server time (): November 16, 2024 02:22 (UTC)

My talk page archives
• 2007  • 2008  • 2009  • 2010  • 2011  • 2012  • 2013  • 2014  • 2015  • 2016  • 2017  • 2018  • 2019  • 2020  • 2021  • 2022  • 2023  • 2024

Inquiring about proposed article revision

Hi Barek, In its current state the Rent-to-own article is lacking proper citations (including dead links and non-WP:RS such as rtohq.com), is not clear and well-written from a readability/WP:MOS perspective, and seems to have become a recurring place for spam and promotional content. I noticed that you've been one of the more active defenders against the non-encyclopedic edits made to this article, so I thought perhaps you could be of help, in the interest of bringing this article up to Wikipedia standards.

After gathering up reliable sources (e.g. NYT, Associated Press) and adding those to a draft, I sought feedback on the article's Talk page about one week ago. That inquiry has yet to receive any response, as one could expect for a somewhat dry topic. Looking to best uphold WP:COI, I've not actually edited this article (hence, the talk page post). Is this something that you'd be able to comment on? No need to feel obliged if this subject is not your cup of tea! Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been very active on Wikipedia over the past few weeks, due to real-world issues keeping me more occupied than normal. I'll take a look when I get a chance - hopefully this weekend (have a cold that may keep me from enjoying the outdoors as much as I had originally planned this weekend, so may be near a computer). --- Barek (talk) - 16:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated, and do feel better! Jeff Bedford (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant to add this to my earlier reply, but forgot:

There's also a chance that one of my talk page stalkers may take a look at Rent-to-own (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to add additional input. Or, optionally, there are two Wikiprojects listed for the article, you could request input from members of those projects (either or both: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finance) - as they would also have an interest in the article topic. --- Barek (talk) - 17:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Very sorry ... I started looking at the changes, but then got side-tracked by a different issue and forgot. I'll take another look tonight. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh no worries--I noticed that the Wikiproject Business and Wikiproject Finance talk posts hadn't received any response, but I see that as quite natural for a topic like this. It's not like we're talking about Aerosmith or the iPad! Thanks for your willingness to assess. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

G'day Barek, here's to hoping that you've fended off that cold. I happened to notice that you've got limited time online as of late, and I'd like to respect that. As such, would you recommend that I move forward with the suggested edits to Rent-to-own and leave a note on the article's Talk page inviting follow-up feedback? Or would it be best to get an alternate opinion on a relavent noticeboard? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm very sorry - my lack of a reply hasn't been very helpful for your efforts to update the article. I should have updated you sooner.

I had previously stepped through your edits at User:Jeff Bedford/Sandbox5 and didn't see anything that was an issue - although I had still planned to look closer at context and phrasing in the new layout - just haven't been able to get to it. Unfortunately, that isn't going to change soon due to less-and-less time available due to real-world priorities.

As I didn't see any initial concerns, I would support making the change with a note to the talk page (in theory, anyone with an interest in the topic would have replied by now - you gave 2.5 weeks for others to review it).

If there are any edits which I missed which you feel have a chance to be controversial, since no one from the related WikiProjects responded, you could try the WP:RFC process to try for additional input. Your call on that. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, and I can certainly appreciate the need to prioritize real life. After reading through the draft one more time, and reading your recommendations here, I elected to go forth with the edits, as I feel that the updated version is sufficiently objective and well-sourced--certainly leaving the article in a better (in the sense of closer to WP standards) form. In the interest of emphasizing the fact that these edits are merely a step in the right direction, and to clarify that no ownership is implied, I left a follow-up note on the article's Talk page, essentially making note of our discussion while also leaving the floor open for continued revision or feedback for others coming across the article in the future. I see this as a sufficient and reasonable approach, but if you feel otherwise I'm open to adapting it. Appreciate the input and time you spent diverting your attention to this, most thrilling of topics. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisting of planetill.com

Planetill.com is ranked in the top 37,000 site in the US and the top 143,000 globally (Alexa Ranking). it is an original source on information, news and original entertinment interviews that has been cited as sources for teh BBC, MTV, HipHopDX, SOHH.com and various other sites. I was posting reviews for album because labels send us work before albums get released and many times, we were mroe than a week ahead of release dates. When posting reviews, we never deleted or pushed off any existing work, and we added new infromation to pages when we got first hand/primary source information from the artist or entertainer themselves. We never added anything to self aggrandize our site but pertinent information that fans and researchers should have had access to. I ask humbly that you reconsider the blacklisting. I attempted to discuss my side with the editors at that time and for wahtever reason they were unwilling to even look at the merits of the site. I've trained editors for Billboard, XXL, AllHipHop.com and other legitimate outlets. Please reconsider the blacklist or inform me of what channels i have to go through to get off the list, even if I won't place things on myself. Dr.Deisel 04 June 2011Dr.deisel (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.deisel (talk • contribs)

I have very limited availability online at this time, as a result, I haven't had time to read your full post, nor to investigate what little I did have time to read.

The best forum to request removal from the blacklist is WP:SBL#Proposed removals. There are brief instructions at the top of that section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am very mad!

Would you stop deleting my pages???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjbear178 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Your initial page creation qualified for speedy deletion as it existed only to advertise with no indication of importance (note:I erroneously listed the deletion reason as A7, it should have shown G11 and/or A1). Your subsequent creations of the page were not legitimate articles, but rather creations for the sole purpose of disrupting Wikipedia to complain about the deletion. The intentional disruption is viewed as vandalism - and as a result of repeated occurances, your account has now been blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't Top Trees Link deleted

Hi Barek,

I wonder why you deleted my entry a day or two ago. The link added is an educational link. I re-entered the link today. Thank you.

Luis Prado Communications & Outreach Washington State Department of Natural Resources 1111 Washington Street SE Olympia, WA 98504 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisalbertodnr (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The link contains virtually nothing that's not already in the article beyond providing downloads for promotional materials. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your website. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Niche market article

Dear Barek,

Regarding my talk page and reversion of "spam link". The canned message you sent me says to bring up for discussion the inclusion of the link on the articles talk page. If you actually checked the talk page you'll notice I've done this already. You'll also notice the talk page is non-active, and I have added the link, willing to remove it upon request, and then to discuss its inclusion, however no one is open for discussing the links inclusion when it is highly relevant to the article.180.191.145.67 (talk)

Edit warring over addition of the link despite consensus against it demonstrated by its removal by multiple parties is not the way to achieve your goal. The burden is on you to establish a changed consensus before re-adding the link, not the other way around. I have replied on the article talk page with further comments. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

deleted user page

The page has been up since jan 2010, why delete it now?