User talk:Barney the barney barney

Archaeology, You Say?

This is off-topic from our usual back & forth over WP:FRINGE issues, but I was curious what area of archaeology you're interested in? I'm a historian and have done some work at several of the old presidios, missions and at Painted Rock (San Luis Obispo), though my usual field is medieval and early modern history. Always interested to find someone else who's into old rubbish. The Cap'n (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Software Engineering Society

I am working on this and soon it will contain data. M. Adnan Khadim 11:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madnank (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vivian Davies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Centre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

What

Why are you adding stuff to an archived ANI thread? Nobody removed your comment from the original thread; they're just removing your addition to the archive, which doesn't belong there. vzaak 20:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Censored, and now blocked for undoing censorship.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Atama頭 20:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify - it wasn't 3RR because the edits were vandalism. My comments on the behaviour of others were being removed, they should be reinstated. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The censored text was as follows:

Askahrc (talk · contribs) - you make this sound like it's a bad thing. What's so bad about implementing Wikipedia's policies, and doing research into the subject? The sanctions were against WP:SPAs who didn't want to comply with policies. You either need to demonstrate that the article is not compatible with those policies, or reach consensus about changing the policies. Good luck with either of those. Barney the barney barney (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not see what the problem is with this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Barney, you know that the issue is edit warring and inserting content into "closed" archive discussion. There is no "censorship". There is "what were you thinking?" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I protected the page at about the same time as the block was applied. BtBB, an archive is a record of a previous conversation. Once it's archived, it's over. If you felt the need to resurrect the thread, you could do that, though I can't imagine what benefit there would be in that. Anarchy will soon prevail if we keep continuing discussions in archives. How about we all agree to leave the archive alone, as is, you can be unblocked, and I can unprotect the page? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

So if it's closed, why are Liz (talk · contribs) and Askahrc (talk · contribs) editing it? Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this a trick question? They're removing your addition to a closed discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, well, I've got to leave for a while. If BtBB agrees to the suggestion above, I'd recommend an admin undo everything and we go back to Wikipedia's normal background level of dysfunction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made the suggestion multiple times to BtBB, that it can be resurrected at ANI. I don't quite understand the need to add information to an archive where people aren't likely to see it anyway unless they're searching for it, as opposed to bringing it to ANI itself where it will be made very public. My suggestion (and warning) was just deleted. I don't know if this is a case of WP:IDHT or an attempt to rile people up, or what. If BtBB wants to follow suggestions to take the matter to ANI I'll be happy to unblock. Or if there's just an acknowledgement that archives aren't supposed to be messed with and a promise that they won't be trying to do it again. Otherwise the block will expire in a couple of days, and hopefully they'll just go back to regular editing. If there's a specific dispute with a particular person, or group of people, I'm happy to try to moderate a solution too. -- Atama頭 21:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Atama, I think it's simply that Barney wanted to have the last word in that discussion, whether anyone saw his comments or not. But, as far as I know, it's only cool to edit ones own user talk page archives and especially not mess with ones for noticeboards like AN, AN/I or ARBCOM. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc

Hey Barney, I had a long and totally unproductive talk with Askahrc complete with silly insults and vulgar rhymes. He’s worked himself into quite a state and is totally impervious to all my attempts to reason with him. At this point he’s so overcome with fringe furor that he seems ready to embark on an Iantresman-style crusade.

Vzaak’s action against him doesn’t appear to be going anywhere fast, so I suspect that Askahrc may yet trouble you again. I don’t know what his next move will be, but I advise you to be weary. The fight over the Sheldrake page may not be over. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

76.107.171.90, this is a borderline personal attack on Askahrc. It's insulting and dismissive. You should be encouraging cooperation and consensus-building, not battleground behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

First off, 76, the silly rhymes and insults were all on your end. Secondly, I had nothing to do with Barney's blocking, I tried to warn him about editing the archive, but he chose not to listen. I didn't weigh in with any admins or anything of the kind, that was their deal. The Cap'n (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)