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 (): August 7, 2024 23:00 (UTC)

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

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MozartsMother (talk • contribs) 21:26, 19 August 2013‎

Valley line and Festival Line

Please restore the pages you deleted. Please do not do it again and make it so that it can't be removed. I had to search a lot to find out how to make these templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingeroscar (talk • contribs) 15:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the stations do not yet exist, and based on talk page discussions there is not yet consensus to add them. Please note that continually editing against consensus can potentially result in either the templates being protected against being re-created, or your account being blocked. Short answer, get consensus first before recreating the templates. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

re. 88.104.27.75

I'm sure you want to be done with this, but I think after this edit, 88.104.27.75 needs his block updated so he can't edit his user pages per WP:IDHT. Since user just isn't "getting it", maybe it will help to drive the point home.    DKqwerty    06:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree they are suffering from WP:IDHT. They also appear to be engaging in some low-level Wikilawyering - attempting to reference other policies as reasons they should not be blocked, while totally ignoring the one that spells out the reason, and which has been linked for them several times. Their other posts to Jimbo's talk page as well as their starting of an MfD makes it clear this is someone familiar with Wikipedia and it's policies.

That said, their editing of their own talk page isn't (yet) to the threshold of blocking their ability to edit their own talk page - although they might get to that point if they continue down the path they are on. That said, I'm likely going to bed soon - so it'll be up to another admin to change the block settings if it becomes necessary. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've also warned the user of the possibility of losing their talk page access due to repeated frivolous unblock requests - I was stunned to see the most recent one claim the block was WP:IAR - IDHT indeed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

10-4. But: how was (s)he able to make this edit if (s)he is blocked from editing?    DKqwerty    07:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Their block has now been extended and talk page access revoked.

The edit you referenced appears to have been made with a time-stamp of 3:43, but the block wasn't done until 5:56 (and extended at 7:43). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Not to beat a bead horse, but (s)he still seems able to edit own talk page per this edit.    DKqwerty    08:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

   DKqwerty    08:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:88.104.27.75

Is there any reason User:SFK2 wasn't blocked for edit warring and the rest of those reverting the anonymous editor weren't reprimanded for inappropriate use of the revert tool? Ryan Vesey 16:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment — SFK2 did step over the WP:3RR line, but only by a single edit. I think given the rash of disruptive editing conducted by 88.104.27.75 last night, this offense is completely forgivable. At some point or another, I think we've all crossed 3RR accidentally in an effort to squelch persistent or extreme vandalism. Since the violation was purely good-faith and not meant to be disruptive, I say we give SFK2 a pass.    DKqwerty    17:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Are you serious? SFK2 and others were using rollback inappropriately on edits that were certainly not vandalism. Have you looked at the content of what was being warred over? The anon was removing highly promotional unsourced, unencyclopedic information that was later determined to be copyvio. Ryan Vesey 18:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Honestly, I stopped monitoring the anon.'s contributions (and subsequent reverts) after it was made clear (s)he was editing under WP:POINT and WP:IDHT. My comment was made just from looking at SFK2's edit history, so the nuances were lost. Sorry for that, and I've striked my comments.    DKqwerty    18:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• If Ryan wants to play to defend this IP editor, he has to justify this, this, and especially this. You can't remove the cast of a film because it is "unsourced" especially if the film exists and it was released three years ago. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have no interest in defending the IP editor, I'm dealing with the behavior of the others involved. Ryan Vesey 18:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Then, this is not the venue for doing that, and I'm sure you already know it. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay Barek I understand.

Thank you for your comment. I thought Wikipedia was for everybody. I'm sorry. I did not know it was not for me. Friendly greetings Mario — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario.Royalty (talk • contribs) 05:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Please help me understand...

Why are the Internet Only Media links being removed? These are legitimate news media outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.77.185 (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There were two issues. First, they were added as external links, which goes against Wikipedia's guideline on the use of external links (see WP:EL). And second, they two links currently fail Wikipedia's guideline on notability (see WP:WEB) - note, this is not saying that they are not notable, only that third-party sources have not yet been provided that can demonstrate that the sites do meet the threshold of that guideline. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I realized after the fact that I should have created articles rather than linking sites. Quick question though, what kind of third party source would be acceptable for creating an article for a news organization. I'll take a look at the articles for other news sources for reference as well. Thanks again. Sorry for the trouble.