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. |
|
|
| |||
| |||||
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barek. |
My talk page archives
| ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Edit warring has reignited?
I see that someone has been desperately overdoing the nordic walking article again. I just wanted to know if there was anyway I could help and also have some curiosity about the new picture. (I don't know what sort of license to choose, the picture was made available for use to me in this article, by it's owner.) Also this article vandalizing seems to be occurring in other languages as well.KMuuli (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I hadn't really looked at the pictures much until this weekend, but noticed there are problems with the licensing on both the old one and the new one.
- On the new one, I noticed that the license was tagged as "fair use", but that requires that it cannot be reasonably replaced. Since the value in the image is demonstrating nordic walking (the subject doing the example being secondary), an example of nordic walking could be reasonably replaced by photgraphing anyone providing an example - so it didn't meet the requirements of WP:NFCC #1.
- On the old image, it appears that it was deleted because it was marked as having been released into the public domain - but the website clearly marks it as copyrighted.
- To replace it with the same image, that image would need to be released under a free-use license (here's a list of licenses compatible with Wikipedia's copyright terms: WP:ICT/FL). I haven't worked a lot with image copyrights; but I noticed today that our copyright policy (listed at WP:IUP) states, "Note that images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia, or only for non-commercial or educational use, or under a license that doesn't allow for the creation of modified/derived works, are unsuitable." and that "Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use."
- If you can receive authorization from the owner of the image to allow it to be used under one of the free licenses; then the image could be uploaded as "This is a free work", "This file was given to me by the owner", then email the permissions received to permissions-en@wikimedia.org (or, alternately, ask the owner to list on their website that the image has been released under a free license). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Just in case you didn't see their latest...
This blocked user has just altered your reply to their unblock request. More talk page fun! Shearonink (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Reverted and locked. DMacks (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The IP troll is back after your protection expired. Mind to reprotect? Thought I take the shortcut.TMCk (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
A little more help with the picture...
Hello again Barek. I'm sorry for being a nuisance, but I'm still having trouble with that picture. So I got it uploaded, under a copyright license no less, however I had no idea that I could only use it in the English Wiki. So I talked to Marko and he released the picture to the public-domain, so it's now free to use (except for commercial purposes). The problem is I don't know how to delete the old picture so that I could upload it to the commons instead and use it in all language wiki's. My question is, where should I write to get the picture deleted (Note: I already attached a deletion caption under the picture). Thank you again and best wishes. KMuuli (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the license listed at http://www.markokantaneva.com/40 doesn't meet the copyright requirements to be usable on Wikipedia. Our image use policy (at WP:IUP) specifically states that "Note that images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia, or only for non-commercial or educational use, or under a license that doesn't allow for the creation of modified/derived works, are unsuitable."
- I can understand why Marko wouldn't be willing to release the image for commercial purposes; but unfortunately, that restriction prevents it from being compatible with the licenses under which Wikipedia operates.
- Keep in mind though, I'm not an expert on the copyright issues. I normally try to avoid them, because the legal restrictions and requirements are confusing and give me headaches. People more familiar with the copyright concerns can be found at WP:IMAGEHELP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleting all my culture.
Instead of deleting the culture I've added and more, why not relocate my information to an Arts and Culture section? I see you haven't removed that from the Pittsburgh page even though you were doing edits on the Pittsburgh page. It actually made me think I was crazy to refresh the page and see everything I added removed immediately. Sorry for feeling defensive, but I just felt the page was lacking that information for people looking for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChateauOfADoubt (talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please see WP:EL, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and WP:USCITY#External links - those links simply didn't belong on Wikipedia. The fact that Wikipedia is a big place and other pages are yet to be cleaned up doesn't automatically allow for the right to ignore site policies. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
How do you determine that an event is notable? ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's guideline on notability can be found at WP:N. Several of the annual events also appear to fail that criteria and should be removed as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I see you understand my point. I feel targeted by you for this. It is as though you are just undoing my contributions, rather than "cleaning up" the problems you explain them as. ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)Hi Chateau. I understand that you may be hurt and angry by what is happening, but I assure you that Barek is one of Wikipedia's finest editors. If he deletes something, it is because the language was really and truly in violation of clear Wikipedia policy. I encourage you to read the information at the links he posted for you so you can understand what is expected of Wikipedia editors in these areas. I would be happy to help you if you have any questions that you would like to ask a third party. Chin up, and happy editing, Ebikeguy (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Ebikeguy, It's not that I believe that what Barek deleted wasn't in violation with policy, it's that Barek has been deleting my contributions stating "violation" and leaving things in the same section that I had not added that are also of the same quality and notability. Had Barek cleaned up all the events that Barek understands to be "not notable," I would have felt frustrated at having my contribution deleted, but I would not have felt targeted. You say "happy editing" but I've found that it's impossible to edit without having my edits removed immediately. It is incredibly discouraging, and I've found that this is an experience common among non-admin trying to edit entries on wikipedia. I spent a lot of time trying to clean up those contributions and remove them of "external links" which I hadn't previously realized were so discouraged. I whittled them down until they seemed agreeable. Again, I would have been frustrated if my edits were removed along with other offending material, but when just my edits are removed when there still exists other offending material in the very same section, that is when I feel I am being targeted, rather than someone is truly cleaning up a section based on policy. ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Chateau, I continued this discussion on your talk page. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Barek, can you please explain or perhaps direct me to a more pointed section on determining notability? I have tried to understand, have waited to see which other events you remove (have you removed others? it doesn't seem to have changed) and the events section of the Notability page seems to refer only to one time occurrences, such as news stories. ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, my wife and I had gone out of town for a few days, and just got back home. Still haven't unpacked, so will be a while before I can comment more. I see that Ebikeguy was assisting you, hopefully he was able to clarify the notability and city article questions you were asking. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Ebikeguy was unable to help me, so I came back and asked that question: "can you please explain or perhaps direct me to a more pointed section on determining notability? I have tried to understand, have waited to see which other events you remove (have you removed others? it doesn't seem to have changed) and the events section of the Notability page seems to refer only to one time occurrences, such as news stories." You seem to have a clear understanding of this, so I was hoping you could point me to the section that I must be missing. ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
unsourced material
You could just let me post stuff that is true and that is sourced instead of playing an all knowing genius that you are not. I will keep posting. And you can keep deleting them all you want, but they are true so I don't know what your problem is and why you sit and your computer all day and try to verify boring stuff like this, but whatever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superawesomeamazingdude (talk • contribs) 03:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Amphibions
Hi Barek!
An editor continues to add the identical content from the charade on the Reptile article, however, this time onto the Skink article. I believe that this editor is the same editor, as the previous ones that have been blocked for this disruption. What should be done next? Thank you, -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 06:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I can see you've fixed the issue. Thank you,
-- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 06:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC) - Blocked as an obvious sockpuppet account. If these continue, should probably bring it up at WP:ANI so that additional admins can be aware of the sock/vandal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Today you deleted ALL of my contributions?
I worked for 9 years as a college football coach. You called my additions to the Rutgers football team page were "personal commentary". Wrong! They were facts as I know the coach and have discussed his recruiting approach on several different occasions.
Another was "redundant". I now work with website design working specifically with squeeze pages and Google Adwords. They changed their policy about 6 months ago regarding approval of squeeze pages wit Google PPC ads. The comments I added provided more value than anything else on the page!
What's the problem?
Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by KWrutgers (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
You call my comments about his recruiting focus "personal commentary". The facts are he did focus in the areas I posted.
However, these comments are fine:
"throughout much of its history, Rutgers has been known for putting solid football teams on the field."
"Gifted with a twisting and elusive running style, Austin led the Scarlet Knights..."
"tight end Marco Battaglia came onto the scene as a force"
"Kroll was extremely physical in the trenches"
These comments are fine for you?
My comments below:
"Schiano immediately set out to change the recruiting approach at Rutgers. His plan was to keep the best players in New Jersey and also heavily recruit in the state of Florida for players. Schiano had developed a reputation as a fine recruiter while working for the University of Miami. Because of these contacts, Schiano was able to successfully recruit the state of Florida and he quickly boosted the overall team speed."
Where's the consistency with your "Editing"?
When Schiano got the job, I talked with him on close to 10 different occasions and what I wrote was exactly what he set out to do. And it's EXACTLY what he did. The recruiting numbers in NJ and Florida shifted once Schiano became the coach.
But that's personal commentary according to you but comments such as he was "extremely physical in the trenches" is ok?
Clearly you had a problem with what I added to the "Travel Agency" page. You got a bug up your ass about it and deleted EVERY post I made.
The Travel Agency post added no value? The page asked for an update on that section. I added new numbers from a fantastic article on online travel booking trends in 2011 and 2012. I added some links for reference. This post caused you to click on my name and delete every single contribution? That's bull shit. My post added value and was backed by a legitimate source.
I enjoy reading this website on subjects that interest me. I'll stop making contributions because of assholes like you are running the show.
That last post was from kwRutgers.
And one more thing from kwRutgers
And what I added on the page for "squeeze page" was not "redundant". Nobody on the page talked about the use of Google PPC ads or the recent changes with their approval guidelines. Google made a change about 6 months ago. They are denying approval for "traditional squeeze pages" so I added some value to the page with:
"this method of adding more content to a squeeze page can also be helpful when trying to meet the landing page guidelines of Google Adwords. Google Adwords frowns upon many squeeze page designs because they do not meet their standards for content. Often times they deny approval for squeeze pages with Google Adwords. Adding more content such as a "Frequently Asked Questions" section or some text on product features will often mean approval when trying to use Google Adwords with squeeze pages"
Linked to a recent article with actual screenshots of "squeeze pages" denied by Google as well as those approved by them.
How is this "redundant"?
There is not another mention of Google on the entire page!
kwRutgers — Preceding unsigned comment added by KWrutgers (talk • contribs) 00:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
........
Fred contacted me and said I was out of line for some of the comments. I agree with him. I apologize for the "asshole" comment. There is no need for that on this or any website.
It does not change that you were out of line (and simply wrong) for deleting every one of my contributions because of the Travel Agency post.
kwRutgers
These posts were from kwRutgers.