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 (): May 14, 2024 23:24 (UTC)

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

Adult Friend Finder

Hi, i just want to say few things about your removal of redirect link on Adult Friend Finder. The main link is blacklisted because of spamming on other pages related to dating, like Online dating service or Dating. Official website is completely legal and has no malware, and only reason for blacklisting is spam on various Wikipedia pages, as i already said. I think you will agree that it's dumb not to have link to a website on wiki page that is describing it. This domain for redirect is also completely legal, so i really don't see the problem about having it on the page. I am putting the link once again, and i am sure that you will agree with me on this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.141.160.65 (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If a link is needed, that should be resolved by either getting a white-listed link, or by having the blacklisting removed. A link that redirects to bypass the blacklist is a violation of site policy, and should not be added to any article. Also, repeated additions will result in the redirect being blacklisted as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I've just pressed the "thank" button on the rv of vandalism you did on my talk page. I never knew such a button existed. Please tell me what it did! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I had wondered where those post too ... when I logged in this morning, the "Your notifications" icon had the thank you listed as one of my notifications. It just says who sent it, links to the edit, and shows the edit summary text. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Centralia mine fire RfC

Since now that the article Centralia mine fire has been approved to stay separate from Centralia should we clear the RfC existants from the top of the two articles and their talk pages? Leoesb1032 (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The tag should be removed from the articles, but the talk page discussion should remain for future reference, in case the question ever comes up again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that the removal of the merge tags was reverted ... you mentioned that the article "had been approved to stay separate", but looking now, I'm not seeing where anyone seperate from the discussion has officially closed the RfC. Was the comment about approval from a different page that I'm missing? If not, then a request for closure should be submitted. I'm suspecting a non-consensus will result, meaning keeping them separate as they are now ... but a non-involved third party should be the one to make that closure. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted, because apparently Leo learned absolutely nothing from his mini-Wikivacation for sockpuppetry – upon his return, he unilaterally and falsely declared that "Centralia mine fire has been approved to stay separate from Centralia" (above) and "RfC Consent was reached." (here). Leo, buddy, I don't know if it's the heat from the underground fire or what, but the ice that you're skating on is getting awfully thin – I, for one, am getting tired of your deceptive and disruptive behavior.

And Barek, an important correction: Leo split the article and created Centralia mine fire on April 20, despite the objections of numerous editors. His continued systematic dismantling of Centralia is what prompted the RfC. By "systematic dismantling", take this example: "We need more info on the Centralia mine fire page to make it a worthwhile article. Therefore, less on this page." So, there's an important correction: having failed to achieve consensus to support his action, the articles revert back to the previous consensus of a single article, per policy at WP:NOCONSENSUS. Grollτech (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of what caused the RfC to be started (I'm the one who started it, as well as being the one who initiated the SPI); to be fair to Leoesb1032, it looks like I'm the only one who posted at Talk:Centralia, Pennsylvania to dispute the split prior to my starting the RfC (at which point others obviously commented). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

My bad, when I restructured my second paragraph, I forgot to move the phrase about the "important correction", and I didn't intend to instruct you on your own input. The "important" difference I was pointing out was that by reaching WP:NOCONSENSUS to support Leo's bold edit, policy dictates "retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" (emphasis added). In other words, back to a single article, which, until that bold self-serving edit, had enjoyed an 11-year consensus as a single article.

I confess that you have me completely stumped as to the importance of the fact that you were the only one to object before the RfC? Your objection to the split was impressively immediate, yet he glibly blew you off and pressed on, despite the policy of WP:CONSENSUS. So while the rest of us were just standing there, stunned, with our lower jaw scraping the floor, you took action. Why does that confer any special deference towards his deliberate deception, disruption, and admitted intent to decimate the primary article so as to bolster his own "creation" (using that term loosely)? And he's not done – he has already announced his intent to remove most of the photos, and there's still plenty of content to hijack from the soon-to-be shell of a page.

I'm sure you recall why he initiated the split in the first place, but for those playing along at home, I'll refresh everyone's memory: This saga actually started on April 18–19, when User:68.84.125.66 violated WP:3RR (I think he tried 4 or 5 times, actually) trying to add unsourced POV (only now is it sourced) to the main article. Several editors reverted, thus reinforcing the earlier consensus. He then created Leoesb1032, advanced his POV in his own article, and moved content so his surrounded it with content that he swiped from the main page, just so that his page wouldn't get deleted.

I think everyone has been more than fair, doing nothing about his 5RR, doing nothing when he impersonated an admin, and doing nothing when he again violated 3RR by while page-blanking his sockpuppet investigation (of all things)! I thought he added a nice touch today when he tried to run to another admin for protection. Grollτech (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor tweaking of my previous comment, as noted by strikethroughs and inserts.  —Grollτech (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I just blocked Leoesb1032 for a month for long-term process disruption and misrepresentation of others' comments. DMacks (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"But, Mom! Dad said it's OKAAAAY!" "Oopsie! Lil' boy fall down – go boom!" Thanks for that, DMacks, much appreciated. Ya know, even though I knew full well that he'd do it yet again (I'm sure we all knew) – but after engaging my caps-lock key so hard that I'll have that bruise on my leg for at least a week – I decided to get up, walk outside, and have a cigarette or three instead.... ok, ok, I admit it, I really had to walk off that charley horse, LOL! Grollτech (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Leoesb1032, if you're still following this page: my comment that the merge tags should be removed was solely based and entirely dependent on your information that "the article Centralia mine fire has been approved to stay separate from Centralia" ... however, as it appears that no such official closure ever took place as you had indicated, it follows that the tags should not be removed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Barbecue

It cannot be disputed that the links that I provided, even though they were opinions, show that the spelling is 'disputed,' after all, what else is a dispute, if not a difference of opinion? I also pointed to a later reference in the original entry, which shows that the Oxford English Dictionary states that barbecue is "often misspelled as barbeque"

I accept SudoGhost's objection to my first edit, but do you not agree that this was a fair compromise? Bossrat (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

All the Oxford dictionary indicates is that it is sometimes spelled differently (which the article already reflects), not that a controversy exists. Interpreting opinions and forum postings to mean a controversy exists is original research. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Come on! 'misspelled' means 'wrongly spelled,' not 'differently spelled.' bossrat (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Your arguing an irrelevant semantic distinction. First, a spelling can't be wrong if it is not also different; and as the Oxford definition states, the alternate is often used - acknowledging the alternate spelling does exist and is in use. Furthermore, regardless of which way the Oxford definition is interpreted (wrong or different), it doesn't support calling it a controversy. The etymology section already spells it out and there's no need to provide undue weight to the variant by adding emphasis in the lead section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Your handling of Darius the Great article

I don't think you examined the discussion before passing a decision on it. There was no "consensus". There was a "vote" bey a bunch of people that didn't know what is really being discussed. Wikipedia article contents are based on SOURCES not votes!!Klax44 (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The consensus on the talk page is overwhelmingly clear, which is why I appropriately declined your move request. You don't have to agree with it, but you need to recognize it for what it is: consensus. Your opinion that the established consensus should be thrown out based on your personal rejection of it is NOT how Wikipedia works. Likewise, if you continue edit warring in the article against the established consensus, you will be blocked for edit warring. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Administrators

Hi, I am one of the newest ( and most idiotic ) Wikipedia editors. I'd like to ask what you must do to become an administrator. go to user talk:0alx0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0alx0 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Information can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming an administrator. In short, the process involves a nomination process throgh a Request for Adminship (RfA) during which candidates have their past edits reviewed, are posed questions, and in which the community weighs in on their belief of if the candidate is fit and/or adequately experienced, and if the candidate has a firm enough understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

It can be a grueling process, as every edit from the user is effectively placed under a microscope. It's best to review existing (both current and past) RfA applications to understand what it is that the community wants to see in candidates, what has tripped up other candidates, etc. That can allow you to prepare yourself better for eventually pursuing the process. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Stalking

You cannot have a section under stalking that covers Gang Stalking as simply a delusion of mental disturbed individuals as it is now. This is a real phenomenon on the rise and the mentioned section sites information that is 20 years old for a phenomenon that is only coming to climax in the past several years.

There are reports from organizations like Fox News which are harder to find now due to large gang stalking groups scrubbing the info.

Either way it is not right to cover Gang Stalking at all if it is simply going to be passed off as a mental condition. This is false and if there is an argument on how to cover it there should be NOTHING listed until it is sorted out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedwelsh (talk • contribs) 18:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, this subject has been discussed extensively at talk:stalking, and the current sourced content is a result of consensus on that talk page. If you disagree with that consensus, talk:stalking is the place to bring up your concerns. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Fox source

I will post my article here then first. You mention it is not backed by a reputable source. Fox News last time I checked qualifies as this. Are you saying Fox News is not a reliable source? Or further the police officer they interviewed? Your actions make a mockery of Wikipedia for credible information if you censor valid and backed posts with baseless accusations. Here is my article please review for your records:

===Gang Stalking===

A January 2011 report on a Fox News affiliate covered a local man who was "Gang Stalked" or "Community Stalked" by a large number of people in his geographical area. Reportedly eventually leading to him having to sell his house and move locations due to the illegal pressures of the group.  A police officer in the report commented that while Gang Stalking has been around for a long time it is becoming much more prevalent due to the rise of technology and that groups will use to conduct these illegal activities. Nakedwelsh (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The listed source does not call it "community stalking", says he claims it to have happened, does not state the police confirmed it, it states he claims it was by his neighbors, it does not state he eventually sold his house or moved only that he claims to be planning to do so, etc. I tried cleaning it up once ([1]) to only what was directly supported in the listed source; but the original wording was restored, so I purged the material in full so it can be discussed to a more appropriate and sourced wording before being restored again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the gentleman stalked the police officer does say that it exists. As mentioned in the "forum" Mobbing covers it here: only there should be a reference to the other names for it which are Gang Stalking, Group Mobbing, Community Stalking, and Group Stalking.

Also since bringing up this topic I received an anonymous harassing comment to my wall from user 108.17.79.180. Cowardly post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedwelsh (talk • contribs) 22:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion on if the other article should be linked - I'll leave that up to those with a bigger interest in the subject. My edits have solely been related to meeting Wikipedia policy requirements; I'll leave the content disputes up to those with a stronger interest in the subject to develop a consensus.

As to the anonymous IP - it appears to be from someone who earlier tried twice to add some alternate text to the article. They appear to be posting encouragement for you, not intentionally trying to harass you; but if you view it as an unwelcome post or as harassment, feel free to remove their comments from your talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

To your previous comment the source as Fox News does indeed call it Gang Stalking which seems to be the big stickler in this issue and honestly I can't understand why. It is called that and that's a fact. I'm not sure why there is any push from higher ups to circumvent the fact that Mobbing is also called Gang Stalking. Whoever "they" are they don't want Gang Stalking labelled as anything other than a delusional condition so apparently they consider themselves PHD qualified in the control of this information. As for the IP user mentioned when did they try to edit it? Today? Since I seem to be the only one making changes and posts about this since May 1st I find it hard to believe it is not related to my debate about this issue with you and the other moderators. In fact it probably was a moderator which doesn't bother me, but is rather cowardly. So yes I would consider a backhanded compliment like that harassment in relation to it coming midst the middle of this debate and disscussion.Nakedwelsh (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I never claimed the article did not call it gang stalking - the issue was that your addition contained much more than what was in the article. Re-read my statement above.

Yes, the IP edited the article twice today (both times they were reverted). You can see their edit history at Special:Contributions/108.17.79.180. Their edits can also be seen by clicking the "history" link at the top of the article page. Please be more careful about the facts in the future before making false implications of who originated a perceived harassing comments to you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for blocking the guy who was vandalising my talk page. I was no longer on Huggle so it was annoying to have to keep on warning him. 10metreh (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For cleaning Paula Deen. Bearian (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)