Jump to content

User talk:Barek

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dawsr123 (talk | contribs) at 19:41, 16 June 2011 (→‎Guy Harvey Page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

35px}} 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.
Notice
  • 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 (update):
September 9, 2024 20:38 (UTC)

purge cache

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

I am very mad!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

deleted user page

The page has been up since jan 2010, why delete it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayestaran (talk • contribs) 20:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not exist to be your personal webhost, see WP:NOTWEBHOST for more on this policy. The page was unambiguous advertising and self-promotion, so was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G11. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camping

Hello.
You just undid my contribution to camping.Your comment specifies it as "trivial". I strongly disagree. Here is why: a) campers do bring swimsuits with them on some occasions. b) I find it important to have a picture of a camper in a swimsuit in front of a tent for better comprehension. c) I am not promoting my girlfriend's body. Please elaborate within the next 24 hours as to why you do not agree.
Thanks. Kodenamezeus (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's self-evident that if one wants to swim, and does not plan to go naked, they would need a swimsuit. It's trivial and not worth mentioning. For other activity-specific examples: if you want to play frisbee while camping, you need to bring a frisbee - want to fly a kite, then bring a kite. It's a secondary activity that requires its own materials, not a direct function of camping. Even if I were to buy into the idea that it's equipment related to camping, a photo does not help convey any more understanding of the subject of camping.
If you disagree with m actions, the place to continue the discussion is on the article talk page which has more visibility to more users than my user talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument fails to make a valid point. Observing the list in the camping equipment section, the following items have nothing of mandatory in camping process: hiking boots, fishing pole, sunscreen, personal care, portable oven. Following your logic, they all should be removed. Moreover, a tarp is seldom a mandatory equipment, at least not more than are swimsuits, and yet you tolerate its picture on the article's page.
I have asked you to respond with a valid argument within a 24 hour interval. Why am I imposing conditions? Because I consider your behavior unmotivated, which, with all due respect, is akin to reverting vandalism. The primary use of Wikipedia is that of adding to better article contribution, and only if the addition made is clearly of bad faith, should it be removed so promptly. You invite me to discuss the issue on the article's talk box. Unless a rule exists inviting users to do so before adding it to the article, my understanding was that only the headline must be discussed first before it is changed. Is adding akin to changing?
If I may, a small suggestion: before removing added content, even if you decide to do so without notifying the contributor, keep in mind leaving him or her a small note on the talk page explaining what you did and why you did. Only then IMO can you pinpoint the article's discussion page and invite the contributors to discuss it there. I welcome any WP policy that exists that contradicts my understanding.
Thanks, Kodenamezeus (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided valid points. Also, be aware that no site policy nor guideline supports your imposition of arbitrary conditions on another editor. Your disagreement with the points that I have raised does not make those points invalid - instead, it means we have a content dispute, and WP:DR would apply.
Article talk pages are for discussing changes to its associated article or project page - see WP:TALK. You asked for my reasons, and I politely responded as well as requesting that further discussion take place on the article talk page. It is not an unreasonable request. See WP:BRD for an informal outline on editing processes, which also supports that the place to discuss content disputes is on the article talk page.
As to your comparisons - a strong argument can be made that with the exception of a fishing pole, the other equipment you mentioned are relevant to camping (not exclusively, but still strongly related). However, the fact that other stuff exists does not automatically mean more should be added, particularly when the content addition is clearly disputed.
I have the article on my watchlist, and will see your discussion there. Please, continue the discussion on the article talk page which has better visibility for the subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

request for adminship

hi, could you please review my Wikipedia: Requests for adminship/Boberson33? (Boberson33 (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The submitted request isn't structured correctly for an RfA submittal. If you go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate, there's a tool that can help generate the page with the correct layout. The existing page could be deleted by tagging it with {{db-g7}} so as to make room for the correctly formatted version.
I did notice that your account is extremely new, which frequently results in unsuccessful RfA attempts as there's very little for the community to go on to evaluate your understanding of site policies, guidelines, and standard processes - as well as having limited interaction with other editors by which to evaluate your behavior. It would be beneficial for you to spend several months getting involved in developing article content and participating in one or more noticeboard which may interest you. However, if you do wish to attempt pursuing adminship now, be sure to review Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, which can provide an outline of the process. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

An IP you blocked is complaining about you at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Admin Abuser Barek. --64.85.214.184 (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin Abuser Barek. DMacks (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Looks like it's already dealt with, so no need for me to comment at this time. I'll make a minor note at ANI, even though the main issue was resolved by other admins after their review of the edit histories. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which begs the question: Do you agree to stop abusing your admins? ... ok, so I'm sure it's been done to death by now. Sorry ... needed a smile today, and thought I'd try to crack myself up. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  23:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I promise that?!? As long as none of the bodies are found none of the admins come out to claim I've been abusing them, I think I'm safe .... this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Harvey Page

I am trying to update info on Guy Harvey's page and you keep deleting everything I post. Why did you delete the external links? Those are all legitimate Guy Harvey links. Also, I reposted the Awards & Honors section again and added sources this time - is this better? Please advise on the ext links issue. Thanks.

Thank you for adding references for the awards section. Having references is important for any article, but especially for additions to articles about living persons (see WP:BLP).
On the external links:
  • guyharvey.com Guy
    • Links to two pages: one which is solely commercial in nature, and the other which is blacklisted due to prior abuse on Wikipedia.
  • guyharveyoceanfoundation.com
    • I appologize, this one should be added back into the article, as Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation is a redirect to Guy Harvey, so is the most appropriate place for that link. I'll add it back in now.
  • nova.edu/ocean/ghri
  • guyharvey.wordpress.com
    • PR site - being officially endorsed is not the same as being his personal blog, so fails WP:ELNO
  • guyharveymagazine.com Guy
    • effectively an advert for the magazine, and fails WP:ELNO
--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Barek. I am new to this so still learning. Can you elaborate on the guyharvey.com site being blacklisted? What was the "prior abuse". And, how do you determine if a site is too commercial? BarakObama.com is listed as an external site on BO's page but its just a fundraising site asking for money. That's a heck of a lot more commercial than guyharvey.com. Also, I have seen lots of other pages about living persons that contain ext links that are commercial. Seems like the judgement is kind of subjective. Thanks again for your help/comments.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barek&oldid=434638473"