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 13, 2024 12:13 (UTC)

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

Misconduct and bias against external competing wiki pages

Your recent attempt to characterize a link to a competing wiki provider as "linkspam" is an obvious abuse of your position as an administrator. This destructive conduct does an overall disservice to Wikipedia, even when considering your removal of true linkspam. Wikipedia may have an agenda to censor their competitors, but please, at least be honest about the rationale of a removal. Masking such an effort by referencing linkspam rules is intellectually dishonest and downgrades both the quality and utility of Wikipedia.

If you disagree, please read the linkspam rules yourself, and try to find a specific clause that corresponds. An external link to a neutral comparison wiki obviously complies with linkspam.

Your actions are shown to be driven by emotion. This is clear because after you destroyed a whole article comparison page using the rationale that a comparison page violates both wp:directory and wp:linkfarm, you destroyed it again after the community restored it in a way that complies with your personal interpretation of the rules (that is, with links and names removed). Your continual removals of compliant and useful information suitable to researchers demonstrates a compelling need to "win" what you're seeing as a "battle" against the community. This is evident from your secondary rationale from the re-removal, where you state that the content is "not notable" (which you later contradict). Please try to take a more cooperative approach. If you have another administrator do the secondary removals, it will add credibility to the merit of removal. --Jgombos (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent removal and contradictory actions

Your initial stance against a comparison page on the grounds of wp:directory and wp:linkfarm expressed in Talk:Online_post_office is fair enough, in principle. You made it clear that comparison pages (like Comparison_of_webmail_providers) is not at Wikipedia standards when there are links to outside companies, and in the end the community accepted this. Then later when you discovered similar content outside of Wikipedia, you did a 180 degree reversal of your stance, proposing to violate the very rules you were enforcing to begin with. Please try to be more consistent. --Jgombos (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wodenheln's edit of my talk page

Thanks for the revert, just so you're aware of what he was trying to edit back in to my page: It was a flaming rant. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

And now he's doing edits like [1] --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Lies. No attempt was made to revive that silly joke which he didnt recognize as being a silly joke. This is bad international diplomacy. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 05:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the history here, and don't have time to research your past edits to find out; but you two seriously need to either work out your differences, or just stop interacting with each other whenever possible. Taunts, unwelcome posts to each other's talk pages, etc are clear violations of WP:CIVIL. If your interests overlap to the point that interaction is unavoidable - then remember to discuss content and not to make personal accusations - if content disputes continue, use WP:DR for suggestions on how to resolve issues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to go file based on his conduct then, this is ridiculous. I don't have a history with the guy other than the removal of some trolling comments he posted to someone else on the Joust (video game) talk page, no different than the comments removed by this user here. Then he pops up on my talk page with his taunts, then puts them back after I remove them, which is where you came in. Now he's popping up on talk pages of people I had discussions with doing the same taunting. How is this a "content dispute"? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Likely a bad assumption on my part - like I said, I hadn't had time to research the past edits. I mistakenly assumed a longer history of interaction. I'm going out again in a few minutes, and likely won't be on-line again until late tonight or sometime tomorrow. Based on what you've described, an etiquette report to get others who have time to review more closely may be a good choice. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

UBX

Hi, I noticed you make userboxes and wanted some feedback on mine and what to do with it now (I already listed it in the new userboxes page)

This user has his own [[{{{1}}}|guestbook]].

{{User:Mr.Kennedy1/Userboxes/Guestbook}}

Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 21:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You've really done all you can; create it, add it to a category - and use it on your own userpage if it serves a need for you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean create it? Is it not already created, and what category do I put it in? Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 14:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, you've done all you can. To clarify: the steps: create it, done; add it to a category, done; and use it on your user page, oh - not yet done. but that's it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please be calm

In the -Begging You- article nobody is spamming and we have reached a consensus that u arbitrarily are trying to broke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim FOR sure (talk • contribs) 03:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The consensus on the article talk page seems to be against the link - all posters to Talk:Begging You except for you appear to have been against the link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I am not sure. John proposed deletion OR to be included as an external link. The link has been in the main text for months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim FOR sure (talk • contribs) 12:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that John is against the link. While he initially suggested moving the link to that location - the last post by John, in reply to your assertion that "the link is neutral and positive for the project", was to say "I don't think so, per WP:ELNO". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)