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 (): October 2, 2024 14:58 (UTC)

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

school notability

Context. Don't you wish there was a template for this? In any case, I left a personalized message. According to User:Valfontis/Valfontis' law, it won't matter, though. tedder (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I was also doing a message - but saw you had already done it after an edit conflict. I went ahead and tagged the sharedIP though ... the IP traces back to the company that owns the TV station which employs the person that is being added to the school article, so possible COI/self-promotion issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I should have checked the IP. Good catch. (is it COI that I once worked in a building owned by their competitor?) tedder (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're saying that you worked for a third party that happened to be owned by the competitor - not an employee of the competitor themself. In which case, I would say not a COI. But, even if you're an ex-employee, the school article isn't about either company, so I wouldn't see it as a COI - although I can see how others could claim one on the specific material being edited. In those cases, I generally recommend staying at 1RR and using talk pages or DR tools to avoid being accused of a COI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh no. I worked for a company that leased space from a building owned by the competitor. tedder (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I had re-edited my post a couple times, and lost some words. I meant to post:

I think you're saying that you worked for a third party that happened to be within a building that was owned by the competitor - not an employee of the competitor themself. In which case, I would say not a COI.

Which is what you're saying in the follow-up ... so I would say no COI. There is a potential for someone to question if there's a COI if you were editing the article about the competitor, particularly if you're adding/removing content related to relationships to those to whom they sub-lease. But as that's not their primary line of business, I would be surprised if that's even mentioned unless there has been a notable event (I haven't looked at that article myself to verify). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It was still a tongue-in-cheek comment. Didn't mean you to take it seriously and give a full answer. tedder (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh - funny thing is, I suspected that ... but I wasn't certain, and in case it was a serious question, I didn't want to offend you by shrugging it off. :-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should have removed my external links!

Hi Barek,

You removed a coupe of external links that I posted. The links added value to the pages and in many cases link to resources with more in-depth, more current information than the list of links already there. Furthermore, the links went to content that was completely topical.

Did you look at the pages before removing the links? Did you compare the value of the information the links provided to the other links?

The link for the wikipedia page Municipal Bonds went to www.learnbonds.com/municipal-bonds/

While you decided that link was not worth for inclusion, you did not remove the following two links: MuniMarket Pulse Podcast, The only podcast dedicated to Municipal Bond Market News and Commentary -> goes to a dead page List of German Municipal Dollar Gold Bonds -> goes to a page which has nothing to do with the content presented on the page, as the page is completely focused on US (dollar denominated) Municipal bonds

I feel that the links that I added were appropriate and added value. Would you consider changing your mind with regards to my changes?

Best regards,

Marc Prosser — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcWaring (talk • contribs) 23:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at the links. They fail Wikipedia inclusion guidelines WP:EL, and were removed both per that guideline and per the policy at WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools." (Solon, the Lawmaker of Athens, d. 559 BC). DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, you can search archives to copy/paste quotes. If you would like to attempt a constructive discussion, feel free to start a thread at WP:ELN. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The real problem is the sneering and contemptuous attitude that you reveal in your first sentence in the last post. (It was originally followed by others in similar vein, which you have deleted.) Yes. I can cut and paste quotations. I can also select appropriate ones, in this case one which you would do well to consider. I will return to this when I have time, probably this weekend. DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the real problem is that I let myself fall for your bait.

Your intent in which role you personally characterize me from that quote was obvious given our prior interaction, and you clarified that intent further in your most recent reply. I erroneously let myself reply in kind. My response should have been to point out that Wikipedia has a policy at WP:NPA. As you profess an appreciation of quotes I will provide this one from that policy: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines were build over years of discussion and community collaboration. If you disagree with those policies and guidelines, the appropriate path is to attempt to gain consensus that they should be changed, not to attack the person who pointed them out to you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Barek,

Could you explain in plain language what I did wrong?

Best,

Marc Prosser

Would this be acceptable for an external link?

Hi Barek,

I read through most of the guidelines for external links.

Based on my understanding of the guidelines, I think the following would make a good external link:

101 Free Resources For Bond Investors http://www.learnbonds.com/101-free-resources-for-bond-investors/

For the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_(finance)

As I have a conflict of interest related to this page, could you let me know if this is an appropriate external link?

Barek - I am not a spammer, but I am trying to gain attention for my site by providing relevant resources to wikipedia users. I certainly don't know the ins and outs of wikipedia and my intention is not to violate the rules but, to work within them.

Thanks for your help,

Marc Prosser — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcWaring (talk • contribs) 19:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Lurker Opinion: The link you post appears to a commercial site that does not show evidence of being an acceptable reliable source, so I do not think it would pass muster as a valid reference. The link you provide is certainly not a definitive element of bonds, in general, so it does not belong as a general external link in that or any other article. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism? Who Dares Sings and Rachel

Please give me a explination for your accusations?

I have reported you to Wikipedia as I feel you are taking advantage of your editing privlages.

Please explian and do the mans thing and give a real explination instead of a ban which would be an admission of you been wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steph mot'd lulu (talk • contribs) 22:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You were given clear warnings. Continuation of your disruptive editing will result in your account being blocked from editing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of high-quality external links on Information Technology Categories

Dear Barek,

I have just noticed that you have removed a number of external links placed in specific network topics. While I understand the necessity of being strict with the links posted, however I must insist that these are high quality links with original content.

Furthermore, the site that contains the material (firewall.cx) is also recommended by Cisco Systems in their world academy program and also an offical CiscoPress partner!! How could it be possible that these are marked as 'spam links' and removed?

I kindly ask that you reconsider, visit and read the pages, to verify the quality information they contain.

Firewall.cx is one of the most valuable sites containing free information on these technologies, I hope you'll agree with me and allow us to share it with the rest of the wiki community.

Looking forward to your response.

Thank you. Chris Partsenidis 08:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpartsenidis (talk • contribs)

When I reviewed the links, a large number appeared to be product-specific how-to content, which is not appropriate on generic (non-product-specific) articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Lurking

Hi Barek,

Do you mind my lurking, with occasional input? I put your talk page on my watch list at some point, for some undoubtedly good reason, and now I see the occasional post to which I feel compelled to respond. Please let me know if you want me to stop. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, feel free to continue watching and responding when you feel appropriate. I only ask people to stop posting to my talk page if/when their posts become disruptive and they refuse to change the nature of their posts to something more productive. FYI: I have a comment in the header of this talk page which even states "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." - so people have fair warning that other users may respond to some questions/comments posted here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What, lurkers? That's unpossible! tedder (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi administerinator

Do you like salmon?

Just wondering