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 19, 2024 03:06 (UTC)

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

Notability of Glenn Wichman

I believe Glenn Wichman to be notable as defined in the Creative professionals section of WP:Notability (people). Here are a couple links I found. You may be correct that the game is what is notable, but as one of the creators, I don't think it is asking too much for him to be to be included in a list.

• http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,12348/

• http://www.gettextbooks.in/isbn/9780929804507

--Asher196 (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I messed up the links. I'll fix later when I have time.--Asher196 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If there are sources about him (not just a trivial mention listing his name as one of the developers), then I would agree that he would meet the notability threshold. I can't follow the links above - but if they are about him, then once the links are fixed those would be adequate sources to attach to the listing in the article to establish him as notable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the links. One of the links is a bio, and the other shows him as a co-author of a book. I can keep digging if you don't think this is enough.--Asher196 (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dearborn High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breakfast at Tiffanys (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Elevator

Barak, I noticed that you recently removed an article update for residential elevators. Is it possible for you to explain the rationale behind the removal of content? If you would like to discuss the content specifically, I would appreciate your input. The modification was meant to clarify the ASME position on residential elevators, and clarify the previous paragraph which says residential elevators may be less safe. Additionally, the Visilift elevator system, while associated with a brand, is unique and available only for this application. The intent was to inform that there is a type of elevator which was not previously discussed in any content on the elevator page.

Simmons-jl (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the content for two reasons - first, it was unsourced. Please try to find thrid-party reliable sources (trade journals, news articles, etc). The other issue was that the phrasing appeared to be highly promotional, and did not meet the Wikipedia policy for being written from a neutral point of view. As it would require a fundamental re-write to purge the promotional tone, as well as being unsourced, I removed the content until those issues could be addressed and the material re-written. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Unblock on hold at User talk:Strander3

You blocked this user for vandalism in 2011. They are now asking to be unblocked. After all this time I am inclined to just hand them the WP:ROPE and see what they do with it. Checking with you as blocking admin first. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fine - feel free to unblock (although I won't do it myself). Hopefully the user is now inclined to be a constructive contributor; and if not, they can always be blocked again later if needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's hoping. Thanks for the prompt reply. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Citation removed from Human resource management system

Hi Barek. A couple of weeks ago I added a citation to the wiki about Human Resources Management System (HRMS) to the section about what currently HR management systems encompass. There was a citation request on that page for a while so the HR software company I work for wrote an article on their blog offering more information about different modules and contrasting several HRMS on the market. Could you please let me know why did you remove the citation? Do you feel there's something more we could add to that article to improve it? Thanks a lot for your time. I'll be looking forward to your reply. Mary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvinchy (talk • contribs) 09:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the page, while containing some useful information, is also written as an advertisement for breatheHR. It would be better to find sources from either scholarly sources and/or trade publications that would better represent a neutral point of view. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia Lead

The Problem is according to the guidelines the lead should contain a summary if its controversial. But the article not only cites the same information, and repeats it virtually verbatim. If the controversy section were deleted I wouldn't have a problem since its basically the same information, or if the header section was an actuall summary I wouldn't have issue either. I am unaware of any other article like it under Wikipedia, which does lead me and obviously others to question the neutrality of how it is presented in both the header as well as in the article under its own subheading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repairwiki (talk • contribs) 21:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the full article, including the controversy section, per WP:LEAD. Including mention of the controversy has been discussed before at talk:Fibromyalgia - and while changes have been made to it, it has always been agreed to remain. Discussion to determine if consensus has changed belongs on the article talk page, which is why I posted a link on your talk page to the discussion I started at talk:Fibromyalgia#Controversy in the lead section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

online video comparisons

Barek,

I added to the page on online video comparisons because it's incomplete and out of date. I don't understand how my addition was inappropriate for an encyclopedia when every other listing on that page is exactly like the one I added. There are several online video companies missing from that list and my addition was only the first of several that need to be added.

Please let me know what the appropriate way to add to that compendium of companies is and I'll go that route.

Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfichtler (talk • contribs) 15:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The other entries on the list have been demonstrated to meet Wikipedia's guideline of notability as defined at WP:N and/or WP:CORP. I'm not saying your entry is not notable, only that it has not as yet been demonstrated to meet the requirements of notability as set out in those guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Northwest Registered Agent links

Hi Barek,

This is Northwest Registered Agent LLC. I got an email from a Wikipedia user about you. We have a lot of free legal forms that law firms and clients use. As such, they have gotten a lot of mentions on Wikipedia over the years. We don't really understand how this works, but it appears that a competitor of ours from Carson City Nevada, based on that IP address went around and tried to get mentions of ours off of Wikipedia and then tried to put them all back, and now you're involved? I'm looking at some of these talk pages and it appears that people think it's advertising. The forms aren't for sale, so how is it advertising? I'm looking at the 501c3 page. We get a LOT of nonprofit associations and organizations that use our articles. We actually have the only website page out there that has non profit articles available that have 501c3 language in them. The articles are free to download, without any request of information. So how is that spam or advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northwestregisteredagent (talk • contribs) 00:18, 16 August 2013‎

As has been mentioned in the past, the entire web site is promotional. The links fail both as references (see WP:RS) as well as failing to meet Wikipedia's guideline for external links (see WP:EL). Users who have claimed to represent your site have been told this many times already, I see records of discussions going back to 2009, with various Wikipedia users attempting to explain why the links are not appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This whole thing is crazy. We have a huge website. People refer to it all the time. Some web guy in Carson City tries to damage us here, then tries to fix it. This is my first time using Wikipedia and we set up an account, and I have a message saying our user account name doesn't even comply with you. Hey how legit is this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_agent

Looks like it's written as an entire advertisement for a couple registered agent companies. Looks like there's been 10 or 15 others that have tried to get more people on there. Seems like a bunch of hypocrisy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northwestregisteredagent (talk • contribs) 23:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Confusing reverted link to Canongate video

Hi,

Can you tell me why my link to an officIal video guide to the Canongate was reverted? I don't understand what qualifications the other links have that a link to an HD video shot in 2013 of the Canongate doesn't?

Thanks,

MM.