Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is a Wikipediauser 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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/Archive_2009.
I think I've cleaned up the worst of the spam, and reworded several entries to a more neutral point of view - although Traverse (magazine) and Northern Home & Cottage still may need rewording to imrove their neutral tone as well (they read like advertisements for the magazines at present - one needs third party coverage to establish notability, and the other could use improved references). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noted this. As to protecting Wikipedia from Spam, once you are turned on you do not have an off switch. You are a virtual Spamdexing practitioner. In sum, you are a shepherd, a tireless guardian of your flock. Therefore, I award you the following:
Guardian of the Wiki from Linkspam/the Clay Prague golem
Hi - thanks for the note. I have repeatedly tried to discuss changes with editor Dodo bird without success. I have stopped reverting the articles and have filed an edit war complaint against this editor. See: [1]Bob98133 (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I mean ... wow. I see it's also been reported to WP:SBL#farecompare.com. I took care of about a dozen or so, but I need to go deal with some things off-line now. I'll be back later to review some more of the links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reposting that to the ANI issues page. While I do think Nance is trying his best to use that page for his own spamming purposes, I have to agree that the threat to sue, if he cannot suppress any comments he does not like, is a more important issue all on its own. Thus, it makes sense for you to move it over to ANI.
I am the co-owner of www.soundproofmagazine.com. We have writers around the world covering music on our website. Up until now, we have added links to artist Wiki pages that correspond with interviews, reviews etc we have written about them, which seems right on topic to me. At the end of 2008, we did a "best of 2008" feature which listed top albums, songs etc. We got a message from you stating that we were spamming and posting unrelated links. We do not wish to cause any harm to anyone or misuse Wiki, but an artist's work appearing in a "best of the year" list with a blurb about it seems relevant to that artists wiki page in our view - can you please let us know what we have done wrong? We have always been respectful of Wiki policies in the past and are not intentionally spamming, we just think our writing about an artist is just as valid as any other music media source, all of whom also frequently link to external links. If you could kindly reply to (personal info redacted by Barek), that would be greatly appreciated.
The links caught my attention because of reports by others, and upon looking closer I was able to specifically identify two IPs which appear to be single-purpose accounts that existed solely for the purpose of adding the link to multiple articles.
There are a few issues. First, you have a clear conflict of interest, as the links are also self-promotional for you. You should look closely at Wikipedia's guidelines on external link spamming. Repeated attempts to spam links to a particular site has been known to result in blacklisting of the site, which makes it harder for uninvolved editors to later add links to the site where appropriate. The better route would have been to suggest the links on the article talk pages and to allow non-involved contributors who do not have a conflict of interest to evaluate the links on their own.
Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a repository of external links, no policy guarantees that any Wikipedia article should have external links. The external links guideline states that Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic.
One way to ensure that an external link will be viewed favorably by other editors is to ensure the link has more than just trivial mention of the subject, and that the linked information could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barek
If you could please respond to me at the email I provided as requested, rather than here, that would be appreciated. I would like to converse further, but there is no need to have this conversation in a public forum.
I'm sorry, but I rarely take any discussion outside of the Wikipedia talk pages. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so I prefer to keep communications about it on Wikipedia so that any comments can be openly reviewed by others within the project. Besides, all I could really do via email in this case is re-provide what I've already linked to in my initial reply.
Why do I have the same frustrated feeling I get when dealing with a customer service rep at the phone company? "I'm sorry, but I rarely take any discussion outside of the Wikipedia talk pages" - oh, well, pardon me! I didn't realize you were the boss and I was the employee. If Wiki is collaborative, then my request to discuss the matter elsewhere should be honoured instead of power trips by some anonymous "authority" in a cubicle such as yourself.
"If you have a strong preference for discussion via email, then you should discuss the issue with other editors or admins on Wikipedia who may be more open to off-Wiki communications. To locate someone, I recommend requesting that someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam contact you. If no one there replies, you can also try requesting it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)" - do you think I have nothing else to do all day but run around jumping through various bureaucratic hoops? Im not looking to overturn the constitution here, I just wanted to post a bloody link![reply]
Wiki presents itself as being modern and open, but it appears this is not the case unless you are a magazine or website owned by Rupert Murdoch or someone equally terrifying, in which case posting related links to an artist mentioned on Wiki is OK - I assume so, because they are on nearly every damn page of your site. We are all going to pretend that these large companies do not hire people to insert these links on to wiki pages, apparently. If I have a well written, related piece on my website that relates to the subject on a wiki page, how am I harming the wiki page in question by adding it? Yes I want people to read my website, but my ultimate intention is to offer further reading on the chosen subject. I dont see how this is doing anyone a disservice.
I fully expect another answer loaded with corporate-speak about policies and so forth, and delivered in the forum of your choice of course, because you are the man in charge here and thats a good way of reminding me. I wont bother bitching any further if so. Feel free to levy whatever dire consequences you wish on my tiny little website, oh great and powerful one. That will show us, wont it! Do your worst, Goliath.
PS: you may want to remove this from the bottom of the page "If you post a message to me here, I will usually reply here unless you request that I reply elsewhere." since it is evidently untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.164.68 (talk) 22:52, January 11, 2009
Please keep in mind, we are all just volunteers here on Wikipedia. I edit here in my free time, just as others do. In addition to the links which I already provided to you, it may also be beneficial to read the five pillars of Wikipedia. While you're at it, you should also take a look at Wikipedia's policy on keeping your comments civil.
As to the footer, it was a condensed version of the original wording that still exists at the top of my talk page. As it obviously caused unintended confusion, I've removed it. The original wording wouldn't fit in the footer without causing formatting problems on smaller screens. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer fails to address the fundemental questions I have posed in my response:
1 Why is there a section called "external links" if Wiki does not want any external links? All the links made by myself and my volunteers are relevant to the topic at hand. We are not selling anything to Wiki readers, only adding additional, relevant information on the chosen subject. There seems to be a totally random approach to the removal of so-called offenders, and this means the giant corporate sites who add links get away with it because they have the capacity to add more, faster, whereas smaller well-meaning sites like mine get the shaft. Hardly democratic and rather illogical, not to mention entirely annoying.
2 Why does Wiki insist on this fictionalized view that owners of websites big and small do not add links to Wiki pages? They do. Lets live in reality, shall we? Further, the adding of these links is not necessarily spam or vandalism, but could in fact be a sincere attempt to provide further information on a chosen topic - as in our case.
3 With regard to my "civility" - there is nothing in my response that one would not hear in a parliament or read in a newspaper. You may find me disagreeable, but I have in no way been uncivil. I am using my real identity and have identified the name of my website where you choose to hide behind a false name and remain anonymous - who is uncivil? Transparency is at the heart of the new economy, and your approach is the furthest thing from transparent. I also notice that while you explain away the disingenuous statement about the ability to be contacted by email rather than on a public forum, and did remove the offending piece of text, that there was no apology - again, uncivil in my humble estimation. A wag of the finger at you then, fictional Barek.
4 I will take under advisement that in the eyes of Wiki an artist making the top ten albums or songs of the year is not considered relevant to readers, despite the fact that many of these artists add this information themselves to their Myspace accounts. However, I do not feel that full length articles or interviews should be lumped in the same category.
"Bureaucracy is the death of all sound work" - Albert Einstein
I've already replied to your statements - you choose to ignore my comments as well as site policy and guidelines.
As I stated earlier: "keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a repository of external links, no policy guarantees that any Wikipedia article should have external links. The external links guideline states that Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic."
Also, as previously stated: "The better route would have been to suggest the links on the article talk pages and to allow non-involved contributors who do not have a conflict of interest to evaluate the links on their own."
As I stated, the footer obviously caused unintended confusion - if you want an apology for that, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. The full original wording still remains at the top of the page which is and has always been my position, and states: "If you post a message to me here, I will usually reply here unless you request that I reply on your talk page. ... 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.". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that it is not a repository of external links unless your site / newspaper happens to be owned by Rupert Murdoch or Sumner Redstone, in which case your links are on every page of Wiki. I didn't know I had a talk page, and have no intention of using it. Wiki, for me, is only a very small part of an otherwise full life. This conversation is going nowhere, as do all conversations with people who love to quote "company policy" and are "just following orders". I would like to become a volunteer wiki-cop too, how do I go about doing that so I too can randomly cause headaches for small websites? I look forward to being an informer and turning people like me in, please send me the requiremements. Have a good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.164.68 (talk • contribs) 18:16, January 16, 2009
I am leaving this conversation with the understanding that top 10 lists etc are not considered relevant from Wikis POV, even if the artist to which the external link is added is in said list, but that full length articles and reviews are fair game. As we are not attempting to sell anything to Wiki users either on Wiki or our own site, we are not spammers. Spam means I intend to sell to the person, and we dont. For the record, it should be stated that your policy is ineffective and hypocritical, as the huge companies who have access to many, many clean IP addresses can link to pages galore on Wiki (and they do) while well meaning small sites like www.soundproofmagazine.com, seeking only to contribute relevant information to the topic at hand, are ostracized. www.soundproofmagazine.com has not caused any harm to anyone.
The fact that you hide behind an alias says a lot too - I don't have to pretend I'm anyone other than myself because I dont hide from my actions or words, like you apparently do. Its very easy to make threats to people from behind an alias, isn't it? Have a good day.
I did. The source is a blog, which is not a reliable source. On top of which, the blog posting makes no mention of the issues which it is claimed to support in the addition to the article.
Don't bother Barek. Remmeber also I work for a gateway. I have thousands of IPs at my disposal, all of them clean and belonging to other people. You won't win this 86.135.121.102 (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will extinguish the physical source, if not the antisocial behavior and the behaviorist, at least for awhile. Thanks for checking it. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
No problem. Incidentally, on my userpage I have a banner/graphic that walks through the normal process to warn and, if needed, to get a vandal blocked. Normally, a vandal is given a few chances to mend their ways (in this case, their talk page shows they burned through all four wanrings), although they can be blocked earlier in some cases. But for the standard method, revert their change then post a warning message on the user's talk page (standardized warning messages are available at WP:WARN). After the fourth warning (also known as the 'final warning'), if they continue to vandalize then they can be reported to WP:AIV. An admin will review, and if the admin confirms that they were warned four times and continued to vandalize, then the vandal is usually blocked.
The main help page provides a general introduction to Wikipedia, including links to site policies and guidelines. Learning processes on this site can sometimes take some time, Much of this can be overwhelming at first, to help with questions, a there are links at the bottom of the help page which can point you to the appropriate group to whom some common questions can be directed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Off and on; but not very regularly. It's one of the reasons I gave up my adminship on both of those wikis, I just wasn't active enough anymore, so decided to drop the responsibilities too. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
mcafee virusscan
I made the recent edit on VirusScan that was removed for NOR/RS. What is an acceptable source to state that a software product lacks a certain functionality? If I reference the user manual for the product, which makes no mention of the functionality, because it does not exist in the product, does that satisfy the requirement? Do I need to find an existing review that explicitly notes the lack of aforementioned functionality?
24.20.230.100 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An existing article about the product from a third-party reliable source that mention the missing functionality would be needed. My guess is that such articles exist ... they just need to be tracked down. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reading a large number of reviews I have found a review on Computer Shopper which noted the difficulty I pointed out, and have cited the article along with my edit. Thank you for your assistance. 24.20.230.100 (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, Greetings. I noticed you got rid of * Iron Mountain Daily News - newspaper Web site. To be sure, I think that it would be preferable if we had a separate article on the Newspaper, a la Alpena News or Traverse Cit Record-Eagle. Then thre would be wiki link to the newspaper in this article. But this is just a link to the local news, and I respectfully think that you should reconsider. I think it has utility to our readers, and is not anything like a random collection of links. That's my 2 cents. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
The problem is the guidelines in WP:USCITY, which is pretty clear that in the External Links section "a link to some of the official websites should be provided here, such as the official city government, the chamber of commerce, and the convention & visitors bureau. Providing links to every commercial, educational, or other entity within the city is not appropriate for this section. Information about such entities should actually be written into the article, with links to Wikipedia articles on notable entities." Technically, I should've cleaned up other links as well, but was in a hurry so only reverted the most recently added one.
One option would be to add this link: *{{tlp|dmoz|Regional/North_America/United_States/Michigan/Localities/I/Iron_Mountain}} which displays as:
The dmoz website is better suited to store directories of external links, is expressly suggested by WP:EL as useful in these types of situations, and already contains a link to the newspaper in its "news and media" subpage. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the external links you removed from the "Lopez Island" article is one to the local low-power FM radio station's web site www.kloi.org that I added. Would you please identify which of the guidelines were violated for this particular link. Thanks.
Limeyguru (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I said was backed up by statements in the websites that were cited in the edit. Nothing was original, they were the arguments by numerous others. I will make sure every line item is cited with a specific argument that someone else made.
Lavanga (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only link cited in your edit was PayPal's user agreement, which did not backup the text you had added.
We updated every claim with either news articles or first-person testimony about specific issues that affected a wide variety of Paypal users. Lavanga (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, This IP address has been adding a whole lot of bogus information (esp. population statistics) that don't quite get identified as vandalism, but obviously are (in their pattern). Because of what they are doing it is most serious (turns parts of the article into bullshit, and suggests wikipedia is unreliable. This needs a warning. See for example East Lansing, Michigan and Lansing, Michigan. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
It looks like they've stopped at this point. As it's an IP, there's a chance that they could login via a different IP next time ... we'll just need to keep an eye out for similar edits from this or related IP addresses. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. It's 4 degrees Farenheit here, and I've got a long way to drive this morning. Time to saddle up and get on the road. BTW, page view statistics on this article are intriguing. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
(cur) (prev) 03:08, 6 February 2009 68.211.179.132
-- Stan
Its been several hours now and it hasn't continued, and these are the only edits ever done from these IPs. I usually only warn IPs if the problem has been within the last 30-60 minutes - or if there's evidence that the same user has repeatedly used the same IP address over a period of time. The problem with warning IPs is that the next time they log in, it could be an entirely different IP address, so the person for whom the warning is intended may never see it. Worse; the next person to sign into the IP may be an innocent third party who wasn't involved with the vandalism - and they would wonder why they are receiving a warning when they may never have even edited before. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be under attack regularly. Do you have any input on getting it semi-protected? So that these unregistered IP addresses can't edit. If we cut them out if they weren't registered, they wouldn't edit, or they would presumably take some personal responsibility. That's my recommendation FWIW. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I've submitted the article for protection at WP:RFPP. The admins over there generally prefer seeing at least a couple weeks worth of daily vandalism before they semi-protect - which I think the article is now receiving. My guess is that an admin will semi-protect it for a week or two. Then if/when the vandalism resumes, it can be re-requested after vandalism again occurs steadilly over a few weeks. Usually subsequent semi-protections are for longer durations - but it's up to the determination of the protecting admin to establish the duration that will be used. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I was spending Valentine's day with my wife, so didn't see your post until now. It looks like the user has stopped; at least for now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None too soon. He was busy and destructive, and I was reverting him in an ever widening sea of disruption, and I sending up lots of flairs, too. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
It was two users, and they were doing their best to make it hard to undo. And they wre double teaming it, faster than I could undo it. Obnoxious. No redeeming social value. Bah-humbug. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
ran into a couple edit conflicts in reverting vandalism on the Fruit page, may want to revisit this in a bit make sure right version is what's in place. I'm gonna defer to your efforts since you're a much more experienced editor than I am. Thanks for making the web "not suck", and cheers — Ched (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies needed at all - that's exactly what I was trying to do as well - when I realized that you were on top of things. I just wanted to let you know so you didn't think I was being a jerk or something. — Ched (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your summary of all the different "lowering/raising the shields" on this article is a good one, as it neither names the vandal nor the contents of the vandalism, thus keeping ego-stroking to a minimum. Over at User talk:Tedder, we've been kicking around how to deal with this in the future. It seems like your writeup is an excellent item that immediately answers the question of why it's blocked. Maybe it could be formalized into a box at the top of the page, or maybe just as-is would be good. If you'd like to add any comments on Tedder's user page, feel free. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?18:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually almost regretted posting it once I had done so. It's impossible to guess the vandal's true motivations for this persistent behavior; but if he views it as a game at this point - then listing the protection too prominently could be a point of bragging rights for him. The single posting that will eventually move to the archive probably isn't too big of a deal; but making it prominently viewable could potentially just reinforce his behavior. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've been talking about this on User talk:Tedder. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of simply telling anyone who asks (who's probably a sock anyway), to just read the history. And if they raise the slightest fuss (thus betraying that they're another sock), refuse further discussion with them and get them blocked. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?21:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Costco
Where were you over a month ago when I first posted this notice? No disrespect, but it is very amusing that you all of a sudden show up. Elpablo69 (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a result of your edit warring on Sam's Club - I was reviewing your recent activity and saw the same pattern of edit warring against multiple other editors on that article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:72.54.129.226
Would you please take a look at this and see if there is anything you can add. I felt bad about reverting these edits, and I don't want to discourage these contributors. /This arose from an edit at Pentwater, Michigan. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I agree with your removal of the text. The person may feel strongly about the location; but the text that was added was highly promotional - more appropriate for a tourism commission website or the website of the local chamber of commerce. It's not really something that can really be reworded to a neutral point of view, so the best option left was to remove it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Booze sold to minors again at WHITEFISH MOUNTAIN RESORT
The Whitefish Mountain Resort owned bar once again has been cited for selling booze to minors. One more time and they'll lose the licence for 20 days. This might seem trivial to you in Seattle, but the law was created here in Montana to reduce the number of deaths due to underage drinking.
The other establishments on the hill were able to comply with the law, it's just the resort owned bar that seems intent on breaking the law.
It's a non-notable employee problem, not particularly notable for a worldwide encyclopedia. Now if you can find a source that states that management instructs its staff to violate the law, that would be notable. Staff who violate the law despite activities of the police and management simply shows that the staff require better training and/or need to be released from employment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bank
I tried to call myself "Bank of America" but I was prevented because there is a user called "Bankofamerica". He has been around for almost a year and nobody has complained. May I be given the same courtesy as extended to that user? Thank you. Please note that I have noted on my user name that I am not an official spokesman of the Wells Fargo Bank NA Wells Fargo Bank (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Wells Fargo Bank Customer". Is that ok? It's not really true because I don't have a bank account with them but I neither love them or hate them..no opinion actually. Wells Fargo Bank (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Error 1. You call me a vandal.
Error 2. You call me 3RR when I am trying to fix an error. User Renaissancee agrees with me that there is an error and is helping me, unlike you.
Error 3. There is a user called "Bankofamerica" that was created in June, 2008.
Stop making errors. Either that or just change my name to Wells Fargo Bank Customer, ok. Just change it if you demand it. Otherwise, leave it and me alone. Thank you! Wells Fargo Bank (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more careful with your edits in the future. Regarding your claims:
1) I have never called you a vandal, however, I have stated that your edits, while done in good faith, could potentially be viewed as vandalism - particularly if they persist.
2) You should read WP:3RR (follow the link), by the definition, you were engages in an edit war. You should have taken it immediately to the talk page until the issue was resolved, not continuously editing then discussing.
3) No user by the name of Bankofamerica (talk·contribs) has ever made a single edit to Wikipedia (see the "contrib" link next to the username). I do not have the ability to change your username; but I may consider submitting yours for consideration of blocking, as it is misleading.
If you seek some action against me but fail to seek similar action against the Bankofamerica, then this is evidence that you are using rules to attack me. If you complain, you should also note (for truthfulness and accuracy), that I have stated on my user page that I am not a representative of the bank and you should also note that I have offered to change my name in order to pacify you. Thank you. Wells Fargo Bank (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference with that account. If a user under the name Bankofamerica (talk·contribs) had even a single edit to review, I would look equally closely at that username. However, while that username was registered, the account has either had all edits deleted by an admin or the account has never been used for editing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be nice
In the half an hour I've been here, I've met 2 nice people, including one that helped me fix an error in Wikipedia. You, on the other hand, accuse me, make it difficult. Another person even welcomed me.
In this short time, you have objected to my error correction (supported by another person, opposed by nobody else but you) and have made objections about me, etc.
Look honestly in your life and see if you are giving others problems. If so, don't do it anymore. If not, don't make trouble for me. This advice may seem harsh but it is for your benefit. Wells Fargo Bank (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My warnings to you have been due to your behaviour on Wikipedia. I am sorry if it seems cruel, but the community has rules for reasons. Do not assume others are the one in error, particularly when they have repeatedly pointed you towards the community rules which you are failing to read. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on, Barek. You've been on here a long time. Don't forget WP:BITE and WP:ASSUME. I think it was clear from the start that this editor wasn't a vandal. Friendly reminders are much more useful than accusations of vandalism. Wells Fargo Bank's edits were clearly in good faith. I made tons of mistakes when I started here. Didn't you? freshacconci talktalk02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have used template warnings - but at NO point have I used the vandalism template. I have, thus far, notified Wells Fargo Bank (talk·contribs) re: {{uw-username}}, {{uw-3rr}}, and {{uw-test2}} - and on the test2 warning I also added some additional text to clarify the reason for the warning. I have not accused him of vandalism (a term of which I am careful in my use) - but I did state above in a reply to him "I have stated that your edits, while done in good faith, could potentially be viewed as vandalism - particularly if they persist."
However, given that the user was obviously not taking the time to follow and read the links which I provided, you are correct that I should have been a bit more gentler per WP:BITE, and likely would have been better to not have used the {{test2}} template and only used free-form text in that post to him. I will remove or strike out that template warning from their userpage, but will leave the free-form text from that warning. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on the editor's particular contributions, the username policy does indicate that, while not specifically prohibited, the "use of a company [...] name as a username [...] is not recommended" (emphasis mine). Considering the editor's username, and considering that he or she is editing financial industry articles, it seems that, at a minimum, this could be confusing to users or even harmful to Wells Fargo and its reputation, which is why explicit company names are frequently disallowed. The policy does state: "In the uncommon case that an otherwise good-faith contributor deliberately ignores requests to change their username, and goes on using a name that other editors agree is too confusing, then that username may be blocked to prevent further disruption." Given this, it may be appropriate to consider the username at WP:RFCN. user:j (aka justen) 06:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it is. I've always found the fact that WP:UN doesn't explicitly preclude using obviously corporate names to be unusual. It used to be that usernames made up of company names would be punted from WP:UAA to WP:RFCN, but I guess this was so obvious as to warrant an immediate block... user:j (aka justen) 22:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I am concerned that I got off on the wrong foot with this user; and because of that, I chose not to report him to WP:UFAA myself, although I did see that another user reported him there resulting in his block. I think the best thing I can do at this point is to let others help him, as our initial encounter will likely taint his opinion of suggestions from me.
On Bankofamerica (talk·contribs), I'm not sure what to make of that account. I can see that it was created; but as I mentioned above it has never made a single edit, even though it was created almost nine months ago. My initial reaction was to believe it was created to prevent it from being used - although I do have its user and talk pages on my watchlist, just in case. Opinions? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, problematic usernames that never edit or cease editing voluntarily have often not been addressed further. Should User:Bankofamerica begin editing, it would probably need to be addressed at WP:UFAA or WP:RFC/N. I'm going to go with your hunch, though, that someone created it to protect it from abuse. user:j (aka justen) 00:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.
I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!
Have Black & Tan (Guiness and Harp (although they are owned ironically by South African Brewing Company). Enjoy the day. Best regards to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Based on info on the user's userpage, it appears that they are attempting to use Wikipedia to pay homage to the person they are adding; but Wikipedia really isn't the right venue for that sort of thing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was user touting himself -- but I guess that's just supposition. Hard to tell. I note also that if you click on the old red link, there was a page by that name that has been deleted. BTW, take a gander at Flipism. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Uh, hello, a nickname for Mississippi is "The Trailer Park State". Ask anyone. Why am I not allowed to post this on the state's page?
-babadawheehee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.163.202 (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply there to bash the state, it's unsourced, it's a derogatory name that I can find via internet searches used to bash at least a dozen different states, it's not encyclopedic, it's not officially recognized by any legitimate organization, etc. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disney Cruise Line
Hey, thanks for keeping an eye on the Disney Cruise Line article. After dealing with a lot of IP vandalism lately, I was wary of this one too, especially since the oft-mentioned Disney Vandal often says things are shifting in the time range of 2009-2011. Well, I found a posting on the website of the Orlando Sentinel that confirms that the Disney Wonder will move to LA when the Disney Dream arrives, so I've updated both DCL and Disney Wonder articles and added the appropriate citations. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
user:Ronz
Could you please also report the user Ronz for making 14 edits to the "Pizzle" page which you have recently taken interest in? Did you just overlook those edits or are you Ronz too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.142.120 (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, do not blindly toss around claims of sockpuppetry. Just because multiple parties disagree with you does not mean they are all the same person. If you look at the edit histories of Ronz and myself, you will see that we each have long established edit histories with very little overlap in interests and different editing styles.
I first added the page to my watchlist due to a report of a related page at WP:WPSPAM by another editor which was made earlier this month (the report is now in the archives for WP:WPSPAM).
The report at WP:AN3 was based on seeing a single editor edit warring against multiple other editors - I did not spot that Ronz had also gone beyond 3 edits and had already been warned; had I noticed that, I likely would have reported Ronz as well with a comment that while I agree with Ronz's position, edit warring after a warning should not be done. However, as 3RR is for current on-going edit wars and Ronz has not made any additional edits - I will not be reporting anyone else at this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
216.245.235.23
This editor has added some interesting material. A bunch of pages (e.g. Traverse City, Michigan)have some very weird entries. Some of them look vaguely like pronunciation. But it uses a form of diacritical markings withi which I have no familiarity. Do you know what these edits are? 00:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Stan
I think yours has too. This would seem to be an April Fool's Day prank. (Not my report to you, but the event). I asked for the help of WP:AIV. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I don't think mine is being redirected ... I was able to fix yours though, and I see that the prankster posted after it was fixed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't made any indication that there's consensus to make changes, nor provided any specific reasons for changes other than the vague "needs many updates". Please provide details and justification, as it stands now, short of parsing your entire submittal word-for-word, there's no means to identify the specific changes you are wanting to have made. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page would be the ideal location for the discussion, as that's where most people with interest in the article would see the requested changes and be able to comment. You can also create your draft in a userspace - although this is usually easiest if you create a login-ID (as the IP may change next time you login, making earlier work on the draft harder to find again later). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References should be used to provide a source for statements within the article; not to simply linkify words to various articles (see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY). Also, if the link is your blog as you state above, then there's also an issue with conflict of interest in your promoting your own site, so you should also review WP:COI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On all school pages, alumni can be added that may not meet the criteria of notability set forth for Wikipedia entries. The editing community can decide whether or not this person is deemed notable enough for this entry. Of course, some notability must be put forth with citation. I believe that has occurred in this case, at least enough to warrant preserving the info and taking your concerns to the Talk page with regards to notability. Someone has put a good faith effort in to cite and community consensus should dictate this decision not a unilateral decision by yourself to remove content. As I mentioned before, a tag should be added to request alumni status. ForgottenManC (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me where it was determined that school alumni lists permit WP:PRESERVE to take precedence? I've never seen it handled that way on any other notability list - so it strikes me as odd that it would be the case specifically with these - but if it has been determined somewhere, please confirm for me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of taking precedence. The School guidelines mention "Who should be included on the list? As well as satisfying Notability criteria, editors on any particular list of alumni can institute their own policies for deciding who is notable enough for inclusion." Therefore, if something is cited from a verifiable source, but is of questionable notability, remove it once sure, but after it is put back on there multiple times by multiple editors, take your issue to the Talk page and see if you can determine consensus that way. -- ForgottenManC (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While you were typing a reply to me here - I had also been typing a note at WT:BIO requesting help with the interpretation.
Afterwards I saw your reference above to WP:WPSCH/AG, which I looked at, and I agree with your position. I was going to revert my own revert ... but now it appears the original anon has located additional refs, resolving the issue completely. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the edits look as someone involuntarily deleting a letter and trying, but not fully managing to correct the mistake. --Xeeron (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup - I agree, likely accidental ... as no other change was made, my guess was that the use of the "edit" tab was likely a new user experimenting with the options and accidentally removing text and trying to fix it.
I tend to use template warning messages on user's talk pages - so have gotten into the habit of using the terminology from the templates. The wording on {{uw-test1}} is marginally softer than the wording of {{uw-vandal1}}; although in this case I didn't even bother posting a warning because the IP edit was over three hours old - so if it were a dynamic IP, too late to reach the user involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if someone is making actual *test* edits, those templates are fine. Just calling vandalism/anythingthatlookslikevandalismwhenyouhavenoideawhattheuserwanted test edits is ... newspeak, so I am not a huge fan of them --Xeeron (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the reason for the dislike of the terminology. I do not consider the edits vandalism, and Wikipedia's vandalism policy also indicates that those edits wouldn't qualify as vandalism. The edits were likely experimental in nature, experiment=text, so calling them test edits seemed appropriate. I suppose I could have instead used "rv good faith edit" or simply "rv to restore correct capitalization" as the edit summary, but I don't see the reason to prefer those over the summary I used of "rv test edits to restore correct capitalization". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are the wrong target for my scorn. It is just that I see "test edit" used too often in clear cut cases of vandalism, in some weird form of wikipedia political correctness that forbids calling vandalism vandalism. The higher "levels" of the test edit template are good examples of that. Other cases, like simply assuming that it was a test edit when it might have been a simple mistake (this edit here) are not perfect either, but I guess are not the ones that annoy me. --Xeeron (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your edit, and added a {{Verify credibility}} tag for each reference. WP:RS does say that such as source shouldn't be used, but it doesn't say that it must not be used. I think that using this tag allows the reader to make their own mind up as to the info quoted. Mjroots (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good ... like I mentioned in my edit summary, the info from the board is likely accurate data; but the tag you added covers my concern that a better source would be preferable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your Opinion, Keep It
If you wish to avoid an edit war again, please do not dismiss alcohol violations as "not notable". The residents of the area are not going to let the ski area get away with serving alcoholic beverages to children. This is not the first Whitefish establishment that imagined themselves above the law, Flanagan's was closed after several infractions. Whitefish Mountain Resort is very close to losing the liquor license.98.125.84.198 (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never violated WP:3RR, so not sure where you get the "again" comment. This was already discussed on the article's talk page, consensus was against adding it to the article. Who does and does not have a liquor license isn't notable, and neither are local enforcement issues related to it. The article has been protected in the past due to WP:POV pushing when content was trying to be added against consensus; and that can be requested again should it be an issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, the edit war was with alyeska, not barek. The people that support the new Whitefish Mountain Resort deserve to know how it's operated and how safe their children will be while there. The consensus here is that the mountain broke the law, will do it again, would rather pay the fine since it would cost more to exclude underage drinkers. The alcohol problem here is disgusting and we intent to remedy this situation. If you ask for protection on this page, it will appear as though you are just agreeing with the new owners and their illegal activities. Remember, this is punishable by imprisonment as well as punitive fines Be my guest.72.160.4.98 (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus on Wikipedia is what matters, not local consensus of a handful of locals that cannot be independantly verified. And it's clear on the talk page that current consensus does not support adding the material. Please remember, Wikipedia is a world-wide resource, not a local community messaging board - being local is not a requirement for participating in editing of the article. If I request protection of the page, it will be because of issues related to Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
Edit war was with me? I haven't edited the article since late Feb. You make a threat against Barek, but claim it was actually intended for me when I haven't edited the article in almost three months. And Barek already covered the issue of consensus. Alyeska (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the place to discuss this problem.
The Whitefish Mountain Resort has a world wide reach and entertains visitors from around the globe so there's no reason to label this problem as "local". The community message boards have already covered this matter, right after the 2 infractions occured, wigh unanimous condemnation.(sp?)72.160.4.98 (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've skimmed over it, but haven't read it in detail. It looks like there are sufficient list of users already signing it, so I'll just keep it on my watchlist (or keep on my watchlist wherever it gets renamed). Hopefully the filter will resolve or reduce the issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the removal of my addition in adventure travel in the tour operators section, that was not a travel guide in the least: it was merely stating why some people choose to use a tour operator vs. traveling on their own: a pretty fundamental difference I think.Mbartholomew (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider the removal of the content I added to E-tail. The content is no less relevant then the mention of CSN Stores or NetShops which are also mentioned on that page. Morganeason (talk) 13:33, 08 June 2009 (PST)
The e-tail article shouldn't contain an all-inclusive timeline of every electronic commerce event. Rather, it should show signifficant events in the history of electronic commerce. From what I can see, CSN and NetShops both formally began their business models about a year before ATG stores was formally created to sell products through several targeted domains. The companies that eventually became ATG Stores were created prior to the others; but at the time those were created, there doesn't appear to be the business model of multiple targeted domains. --23:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the update. Both CSN Stores and NetShops started with a single domain like ATG Stores. NetShops - Hammocks.com in 2002 and CSN Stores - RacksandStands.com in 2002. Both of these were created 2 years after the creation of ATG Stores first site LightingUniverse.com in 2000. FixtureUnivese.com was also created in 2002 in essence giving ATG Stores more domains sooner then both of the companies currently included in the article. All three companies currently follow the same business model and ATG Stores was the first of these three companies to exist with multiple targeted domains. Perhaps as a fair alternative all references to specific company profiles should be removed from the page? Thank you very much. I appericate you discussing this with me. --23:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
It may be better to move the discussion to the talk page of the article. Given the information you provided, this could be argued one of three ways: remove mention of specific companies and only state that the use of multiple targeted domains by a single organization began in 2002 (my least favorite option); or add ATG stores along with the others; or if the other two trully did not have multiple domains until later years, to only list ATG stores. Personally, I would want to research the three businesses a bit closer ... but perhaps the talk page of the article can encourage others to add their views as well.
I'll post over there and start the discussion. For now, I think all three should be mentioned in the article until consensus can be reached for removing any. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Barek. I appreciate you taking the extra effort to handle this issue in the fairest method possible. Thank you very much for your time. Morganeason (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So do you just change things for the fun of it or what?
I don't think you even checked out my source for my post on the Ketchikan page. It's all relevant and real and applies to my change. Go ahead and look at it and if I'm wrong, by all means let me know. But if you're wrong (which you are) please change my contribution back. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroven (talk • contribs) 15:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did look at it. The blog is not a reliable source, and certainly does not meet the criteria needed for sourcing biographical material about a living person. The site even states "This blog ... will never post any identifying information including, but not limited to: place of work or residence, name, or anything else that may identify an individual" - which suggests that nothing specifically identifying a person could be sourced using that site, even if it were a reliable source - which is likely why the link was to the front page of the blog and not to a specific subpage that had any text related to the subject to which it was puported to cite. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ghost Hunters
Please join me in the discussion section to tell me how telling what is shown on their DVD is somehow original or in anyway different from sections describing what is in their show or other DVD's. --Contributions/216.17.75.89 (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recently began including external links to the Illinois Route 66 Scenic Byway web site. This organization is a not-for-profit effort to further the enhancement and promotion of the historic road that begins in Chicago and travels throughout Illinois across the United States. I have added each town to which the road passes through, for they have been the foundation Route 66 has grown upon.
I have read the guidelines to posting links, and strongly feel as though my link does not violate the terms of Wikipedia. I am not promoting any one attraction on the road itself, rather re-introducing locals and tourists to the experience of this American icon.
By your own admission, the link was added to promote the road. Wikipedia does not exist to help promote websites, and articles should not be a collection of every link related to a subject, nor is Wikipedia a travel directory. A good guide to what should be in the external links section of city articles can be found at WP:USCITY#External links
A better fit for the link would likely be within each city's entry at dmoz.org, which is much better suited to be a repository of city related websites. A link from the city's Wikipedia article over to the city's entry on dmoz is supported by WP:EL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the guidelines to posting/editing articles closely and would like to know the appropriate steps to take in including this web site within Wikipedia. What do you suggest? 66.92.140.106 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the site is already referenced from Wikipedia - from within the U.S. Route 66 in Illinois article, which seems very appropriate. However, I can't see any way in which it would be appropriate for it to be added to the external links section of a city's article. For that, the best option would be to submit the site to each city's entry on dmoz.org. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing the Luminosa can be described as a new class of ships. However, the design is in fact a hybrid between the Vista and Spirit Class. In a way, you can consider the Luminosa an "upgrade" to the Spirit Class in a similar way to how the Concordia/Splendor Class ships were an "upgrade" to the Conquest Class. Overall, the design of the Luminosa appears to be more similar to the Spirit Class than it does to the Vista Class. ANDROS133703:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, they are visually more like the Spirit class. I do think it more accurate to call the Luminosa and the Deliziosa their own class - but not sure what to call them ... likely a Luminosa Class, but I would like to see an official name. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry
Ok, sorry for the edit. At least you didn't ban me :).
I try to make constuctive edits; the cake was half a joke, half a test to see how long it would take to be reverted. :)
Jgcxelite (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an interresting report ... although edit warring with ourselves may be a sign of a dissociative identity disorder of some kind - could require some off-wiki therapy as well! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Random Wiki Smile!
Barek, WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Please be careful about using the descriptor WP:POV. Where I'm from this kind of program is not classified as either a documentary or reality show. Is there a convention for this genre tagging on WP, or do you have WP:RS that this show is so described? Verbalchat16:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re cites to the lead, I agree they shouldn't be there - paranormal sceptic asked for them. Should probably mention on talk. Thanks, Verbalchat16:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a comment that cites are in the main section below - I support having the criticism mention in the lead, as it is a notable and significant element of the show ... but the cites in the lead add undue weight to that criticism (they're adequately cited in the main criticism section). Hopefully the comment can be a happy balance between having and not having the cites. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen mention of the show being a "reality" program in multiple news articles (a quick Google search turned up several) ... but those could certainly be using the network's press releases as their source for clasifying the program. For the other, I found mention of "documentary-styled", but nothing thus far specifically calling it a "documentary" program. I need to run some errands for now, but will dig through the sources I can find later today. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will you show me how I should put this information about crooks who steal your money. I've experiences this problem personally and would like to warn people of such pieces of meat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.20.16 (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia likely isn't the best venue for what you want to do. If there were reliable third party sources documenting the issues, then it could potentially be added to an article about the specific company - but it still wouldn't be appropriate for the more general articles about Modchips. Also, Wikipedia should not be used for soapboxing about person experiences/compaints about a company. You're better off going to consumer complaint websites, which are intended for that type of posting. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. Any user can add the warning templates like {{uw-vandal}} or {{uw-vandal2}} to user talk pages. I have blocked one of the two new accounts that you have been dealing with since it appears to be created for the purpose of spamming a timeshare company's properties. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with the warning templates, and will start using them from here on for users spamming the timeshare mention. I've also considered submitting a WP:SPI for the two users plus the IP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spam
Hello. When you encounter users continuing to spam links to commercial sites I would just skip to final warning as spamming makes it very hard to assume good faith that the user is trying to improve an article rather than get profit for themselves. Triplestopx300:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha- I couldn't figure out what happened at first glance. (I'm mobile and the lack of desktop screens makes it slightly tougher). I was just semi-amused. In any case, it's always nice running into you. tedder (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
updating a page to include more info is not spamming
Barek,
Please explain what exactly you find to be spamming. I have expanded the page to include addtional third party refferences, included two dozen internal wiki refferences, expanded the description of the company (which is the whole point of an encyclopedia). External link are used on MANY pages in the wiki project for informational purposes. Again, please do not threaten to block my access for a difference of oppinions. As I am new to the wiki community, I kindly ask for clarification and have not undone your last edits...
The issue is the spamming of commercial links. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. You have been repeatedly warned - and repeatedly provided links to Wikipedia policy and guidelines related to the issue - however, here are the main bigger issues:
"External links should not normally be used in the body of an article."
"Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."
"In the "External links" section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site."
"Links normally to be avoided ... Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject"
Thank you for the clarification on the external links issue. I must have misudnerstood the guidelines. I will not include external links in the body article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabeza (talk • contribs) 21:12, 16 July 2009
updating the history section
I undid your deletion of some elements of the history section. There are NO outside links in that section just pertinent information. On what grounds do you censor such information, such as dates and names of acquisitions?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabeza (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place for advertising. I left in-tact the factual statements and the refs showing the companies acquired. Listing the websites opperated by those acquired companies is unnecesarilly verbose and is simply name-dropping for the purpose of advertising those sites. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with you. Including operating entities of a business provides greater detail and information and is not necessarily verbose and is no way used for advertising purposes. Would including the brands name such as GMC or Hummer in a wiki article about General Motors be advertising or inappropriate? I do not think so. Also, his section has no external links, just internal links for the operating companies that have wiki pages. I will undo your edits to this section. I appreciate your efforts to maintain informational integrity, but I think your efforts are starting to border on censorship... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabeza (talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removing advertisements from Wikipedia is not cencorship - and the article as a whole is quickly becoming a public-relations styled advertisement. Your comparison to GM is also flawed ... for one, GM and Hummer themselves meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and have their own articles because of their notability ... for another, GMC and Hummer would be comparable to the level of the organizations that were purchased by TripAdvisor, which I did not remove in my edit.
I haven't edited many of the advertising issues too strongly as yet, my edits to the history section were pretty minor compared to what needs to be done to fix the overall article - mainly because my primary focus has been on the linkspamming issues. One of the big issues is the "website features" section - this has been purged down in the article's past specifically because of advertisement issues. Do not be surprised if it is trimmed again by myself or others. Also, much of the wording in the "history" and "description" sections are in need of re-writing in order to eliminate their advertisement-like tones.
I would also like to recommend that you stop edit-warring over content when it is removed. Users have provided explainations for the removal of content in their edit summaries, and there are discussions started on the talk page of the article. When you've reverted changes, you have failed to provide adequate reasons and have not gotten involved in discussions. By not discussing and providing reasons, your edits can be viewed as disruptive editing, as well as giving the impression that you have ownership issues with the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barek,
I appreciate your point of view, but I still disagree. The comparison to GMC and its sub brands is a fitting one as the companies I included in the history section receive media attention and tends of thousands of visitors per day and some of them have wiki pages. As to your second point regarding "website features" - this section included information about services that are available on the site, I have taken out many claims that could be perceived as advertising. Including site features and their description I believe is appropriate. The tone of such description is a matter for debate I respect your right of expression as I know you do mine. I will continue to be active regarding this page and others and will include my reasons for providing changes and undoes to better chronicle my reasoning.--71.184.246.79 (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why ref link is spam
Barek, I noticed that you edited the [surety bond] page from the ref link that was added. Why is statistical information on bonding companies for the past several years spam? As of right now the article claims $3.5 billion in premium with no ref link on the stat. I am not looking to argue, but want to understand your line of thinking so I can better understand when ref links are appropriate.216.178.84.198 (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe my edits were more common knowledge than personal research or opinion. I am quite upset that my edit was deleted so quickly, and I am greatly discouraged from imparting further knowlegde onto wikipedia because of this. I would like my edits re-posted. XXX luvya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigeoin (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 July 2009
It was at best original research - that was being generous. More accurate may have been calling it non-encyclopedic content, or if I were to call a spade a spade then I would have simply labeled it vandalism. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.
could you define how long the stability has to be and how many edditors needed for a wiki link to be legal, I don't see what people in here has agains wikis, this is a wiki inself, this place only have a little information on a topic, specialized wikis have all in a very detailed way, how is that spaming useless links? --200.91.125.234 (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I added it back before I read your message. This is a site I've been following and it is really teaching a solid value investing methodology. I believe it should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.29.156 (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If content is removed from an article, the next step should be starting a conversation about it on the articles talk page at Talk:Value investing. Allow the discussion to determine if the link belongs in the article or not.
Personally, I believe that the link fails meeting the WP:ELNO guideline (the site is actually a blog, written by someone who does not appear to be a notable authority on the subject - they may have training in the field, but that simply makes them an enthusiast, not a notable authority). Also, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide an internet directory. But, a talk page discussion should take place to get input from multiple parties. May take a week or two, but that way there's a stronger feel for other's impression of if the links meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ELNO #11 states, "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." He's not a recognized authority. He only recently received his MBA. --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colson House
While it was not one of the ones I usually watch, I decided to help out on this article. I appreciate the review on it. Do you see anything else that needs cleanup on Colson House? Thanks. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for attaching the footnotes. That was the main cleanup issue that I saw; so I removed the tag now that they've been attached. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then the sections should reflect that they meet wp's definition of notable, and not an independent reliable third party's definition Fasach Nua (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? WP:BIO documents the English Wikipedia notability guideline. Are you saying that all official WP inclusion guidelines are irrelevant? I suggest you take that up at WT:N. Good luck with that one, by the way. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
those are internal stands for wp, if you are presenting information for a wider audience, it should meet WP:V, why use wp standards when you could pick for 100s of encyclopedias? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that you don't accept WP notability guidelines? Or are you saying that you don't accept the citations provided within the articles? Please state your actual issue. While you're at it, clarify your statement "So wp is writing about wp" and how that applies - I never stated any such thing, so your comment is completely off base from this discussion from what I can see. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP biographical notability guidelines are an agreed criteria for the creation of articles, but they have no bearing on the content of geographic articles, citations are fine provided they both support inclusion and exclusion criteria, and none of these sections mention either criterion, if you want a section on residents that wp has articles about, that is fine, if you want a section on residents that encyclopedia Britannica has article on, that is fine, but to have a notable residents section without criteria fails WP:V and is unacceptable Fasach Nua (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of that explains your issue with Ruidoso, New Mexico. Citations are listed for them - which meets WP:V requirements. So again I ask, are you saying that you don't accept the citations provided within the articles as being reliable sources? I agree that they appear to be primary sources and not secondary sources by reliable third parties ... is that your actual issue with them?
I have re-read WP:V to make sure I wasn't missing something ... it clearly states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", and that is also the only sentence in it which uses any of the words "inclusion", "exclusion", or "criteria" (the last two not being in the policy). The policy only defines the requirement of verifiability, and provides no further criteria of inclusion beyond that. If WP:V is your only criteria, then having the statements cited meets that policy.
As to the use of WP:BIO within geographic articles, specifically for towns and cities, then for a section titled "notable residents" (or some variant of that), it's reasonable to have a notability guideline, and prior community consensus in discussions on the talk pages to which I provided links appear to have supported that WP:BIO guidelines are an acceptable criteria for determining if a person is notable for the purposes of US city articles. But that has not been unanimous, and I understand that you are challenging that prior position now. But that is best done on the talk pages of the links I already provided, not this talk page which receives relatively fewer reviews by other parties. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:AGF, and take part in the discussion that I started on the talk page of the article. I've looked through your edit history and the other images you've added are a good fit as they illustrate the subject of the article. But in this case, it does not. As I've mentioned, it is a nice image; but in this case it does not serve to illustrate any text from the article, nor is it a useful illustration for an article about the city. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. On Rollback, I've thought about requesting it a couple of times, just I never seem to get around to it. Thanks for the vote of confidence in my trustworthiness. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kasey Ng, California
Hi, I have noticed that the graphs that I inserted for different banks' pages are deleted because of the copyrighted issue. Can I get a right contact e-mail address so that I can send you the permission that I got from Money Economics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaseyng53 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I almost changed the edit summary - I only realized how it could be read after I typed it, just before I hit save; but figured no one would notice, so I left it. I guess I was wrong! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how the building is notable - can you clarify how you see it as a viable stub? Also, the only refs (and ELs) are one for "Friends of the Broadway" which is the organization which owns the building, and the other only shows the address and an incidental mention on non-notable uses for the building (ie: community theater and event rental), as well as providing a link back to the "Friends of" page. I won't tag it if the notability can be clarified - I'm just not seeing it myself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added diffs of 8 users over the period Aug 28-Sep 1; I only lised one edit per user, although several made multiple edits. I only began watching the page on Aug 28th, but there's similar vandalism prior to that date which I could list as well if that's needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it a little difficult to maintain my faith in goodwill when a new article is suddenly inundated with demands for references which were never demanded when the same information was contained, for months if not years, in a different article. Perhaps you could give the originator of the new article Burgh Island Hotel at least a few minutes to put it in order? Ghughesarch (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did over-use the "fact" tags, and reverted them myself over ten minutes before you posted here. I did instead insert a "refimprove" tag for the section, as the refs did need to be improved (and should have been tagged as such from when the text was in the old article). You are making good progress on the article. Please do not assume bad-faith on my part simply because I add some appropriate cleanup tags. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the remarkable speed with which a (by Wikipedia standards) relatively obscure article was jumped on with demands for references that took me aback - I was busy adding refs when you reverted :o). However I'm aware from some news references and recent reviews that all is not necessarily well on Burgh Island as the new owners seem to have upset the locals, so the vehemence with which attempts have been made to suppress the hotel's website from the original Burgh Island article could seem to a disinterested observer to have an ulterior motive in themselves, similarly making my life difficult in trying to find a compromise. It's not by any means a "good" method of assessing notability, but a google for Burgh Island throws up 126000 articles, one for Burgh island Hotel, 48,000, which suggests a fair degree of notability for the hotel as ditinct from the island. Still working on improving the article, and no offence taken, but please, a little less assiduity... Ghughesarch (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - Global Oneness Project
Thank you for responding to my question. I think my Talk page was deleted by someone so I'm responding here.
I think I understand why the links were deleted even though the intention was not to spam Wikipedia. I'd like to comment or respond to the archived comments, but have no idea how to do this.
Would we be allowed to create a Global Oneness Project page? It might be easier to do that. But again, we weren't trying to promote the GOP. I honestly thought the videos would add value and did not think we would generate notable traffic from Wikipedia.
Your talk page still exists. To reach it, scroll to the top of any Wikipedia page and look at the links in the upper right. One of them should be "My talk" and will take you to the talk page for your user account.
Oh, I forgot to reply to your other question ... to create a Wikipedia article for Global Oneness Project, you'll want to be sure that you can write an article that meets the notability requirements outlined at WP:ORG (see the "Primary criteria" section on that page), then locate as many reliable third-party sources as possible that can help establish and verify the notability of the organization - you will need to reference those in the new article. But, keep in mind the requirements of WP:COI, as the article will likely receive extra scrutiny due to the conflict of interest in writing an article about your own organization (there may be additional requirements related to the COI issue; regretably, I'm not an expert in that area ... but if you ask at the help desk, someone there will likely clarify any requirements for you). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get as much done as I wanted. This coming week I'll see what I can find on the Chief Wawatam, and work on that if I find enough material for an article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I just went to boatnerd.com and did a searc for "Wawatam" and there was lots of really good information. Oddly, there is not specific page link that I could put a finger on. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Hey Brother, everybody know that Jack Napier are in a Bruce's flashback when the Waynes are murdered. Then I not need sources. Ask to any Batman fan and you see that Jack Napier are in Batman Forever during the flaschback, I don't lie. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.79.46.244 (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I spotted the ref tag issue and fixed it. On the other two you've mentioned above with minor format issues, I wasn't certain what issues were involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. A previous author had noted that the writer of the original entry might have had a conflict of interest, as the paragraph suggested that carbonated soft drinks have no adverse health effects when in fact they do. I enclosed that comment and put in a reference from peer-reviewed scientific literature; I wanted the reader to realise that my comments had no conflict of interest jcsegenmd@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.208.87 (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, I've more or less finished several of the northern Lake Michigan, Straits of Mackinac and nother Lake Huron lighthouse articles. If you would take a look and put on your final touches and blessing, it would be appreciated. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
HELLO BAREK
I'm a big fan of tallships myself and have been tracking HMS Bounty's voyage on Tall Ship tracker. By the way, I noticed you have been paying some attention to the Jimmy Hoffa page. There is some new info on there you might want to have a look at on the discussion page. I think it would be great if it was added in. I can't do it, since I'm the guy the articles are about. Just a thought, Nice to meet you. Jeff Hansen --Spectre7277 (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you about them being repetitive, although I do like slightly different angles -- 7&6=thirteen (talk), who wrote most of the article, sort of asked me to add the gallery.
Help me, though, with your comment about credits. I always credit the Coast Guard for photos -- 100, maybe 125 so far -- with nobody having said anything. It just seems to me polite, when you have a real name, not a user name, and Wiki does allow images with licenses that require credit. I should add that I don't credit myself, even if I took the photo (20 or 25, so far). Thanks, . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I didn't really see anything new in the additional 2 images that weren't already visible in the existing three images. If an image is available that shows a different side of the lighthouse, then that would add value ... but the two new ones were from a lower elevation than the top one in the infobox, so no new value.
For credits, the credits should be in the image file (for example, at File:Marquettelight.jpg) and that satisfies most licenses that require credits for the images. Adding the photographer's credits in the article can be viewed as advertising or promotional for that photographer. Wikipedia has a guideline for this in their manual of style at Wikipedia:Captions#Credits. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems appropriate to me too, even though it's not explicit in the guideline. Still, guidelines aren't solid, unbendable laws - they're general guidelines that the community has said in the past should hold true in most cases. There can be exceptions, as long as they're justified - which an official government agency seems justified to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sparkplug lighthouse
OK, again I agree. 34 was a bit much. But there surely must be some reasonable number between one and 34. The style takes many forms. I might even argue that a few pictures can do a whole lot more than words to show what a sparkplug lighthouse is (did someone once say "a picture is worth 1,000 words"?) I should also add that Russ Rowlett (surely the world's expert amateur lighthouse person, covering 11,000 lighthouses on his web site) commented this morning that he liked the page. (I know, he doesn't set Wiki policy -- I'm just looking for grounds for more than the one you left.)
The "Commonscat" link that I added to the article provides adequate images, although I could see adding a handful more to the article ... 34 was serious overkill.
Note that per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, Wikipedia is not a "mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Teach me, please. I assume you fairly quickly and easily created the Commons Category and added 23 images to it, which produced the page of 23 sparkplug lighthouses I'm looking at. Or did you have to create the category and then go to each image one by one to add it? In any case, thanks -- that's exactly what I wanted. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had to create the category on Commons, then add the category tag to each image. Not all 34 images were on Commons, so that's why there's only 23 on that page. I went into each image from the original gallery, and if it was on Commons, I went to its file there to add it to the category.
When I setup my Commons account, I went to my "preferences" link from the top of the page, then to the "gadgets" tab, and under "Tools for categories" I checked "Hot Cat", which makes it fairly easy to add categories to the images (no need to click "edit", just click the "+" sign next to the categories and add the category name I want to add the file into). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you deleted my entry about Future Pinball in the Pinball article using the "not a repository" argument. While I see your point, there is an entry in the article about Visual Pinball, also an emulator --and a mediocre one at that-- which you haven't deleted. I don't see why you let one stay but delete the other. If you thought it was spam, because I hadn't logged in, I understand. But please consider reverting the deletion, I think it benefits the article. You might want to put the link next to that of Visual Pinball though. --Doppelgangland (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between the new link and the other link you mentioned. If an external link to Visual Pinball were added to the pinball article, I would also remove it as linkspam. But, the "Visual Pinball" link was not an external link - instead, it's an internal wiki link to a different Wikipedia article which is about that subject. As that article is about "Visual Pinball", it's reasonable to have an external link to it from that page - but not from within the Pinball article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Property Management
Barek,
Why did you undo my addition of Drexel University as a university offering a 4 year degree in Property Management? I thought it was notable and relevant because it is one of a handful of schools that actually offer specific cirriculum on the subject. Please let me know. Thanks.
The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to advertise degree programs or Universities. If someone wants a degree, they can research with an industry association for a list of all schools which meet the requirements of the association. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Barek. I wanted to let you know that I liked the work you did on the Opensource4ever case. And, I wanted to let you know that I liked your UTC calendar block in your talk page header so much, I placed it on my talk page. I hope you don't mind. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem - there are several versions of a calendar block on different user pages. The only problem with it is that the time can get cached and not refresh frequently, so I was thinking of removing that block from my talk page (hadn't decided). I've already added alternate date/time blocks into the Editnotice on my talk page - so that when anyone edits my talk page, there's no cache issue in the Editnotice at the top of the page, so they will always see the current time in those blocks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on the subject by any stretch ... but I glanced through it, and here are my thoughts. Take 'em or leave 'em.
In the form it was written, the reference to StateBarWatch did not identify a specific criticism and only seemed to be an advertisement for the organization, so I see no problem with it being removed. If sources for specific criticisms can be found (preferably ones that are corroborated by third-party news organizations of other reliable sources, and ideally ones which have led to investigations) then those would seem to be a better fit as a criticism, and a mention of the person or organization that brought up the specific criticism would be appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, would you put that on the discussion page of the article. I'm not in an 'edit war' and just want to get this right for the encyclopedia. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Yup, you're right - looks like an accidental edit from the version timestamped 17:50, 24 September 2009. It can happen to anyone ... I've made the same type of mistake myself at least once. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary Market Information
Barek,
I added the timeshare secondary market information you removed, and labeled as "mostly wordy-version of material already in the article, concealing two commercial linkspam links", but I have to disagree on both accounts. While there is a ton of blatant advertising in the exiting entry, there is not a single reference to timeshare resales, and the only rental references pertain to exchange points, and not the interval itself.
In so far as concealing a commercial link, had the link directed to the main RedWeek.com page, I would agree. But the links cite the text that was used verbatim to create the entry. I feel this is an entirely appropriate use of the reference tag.
What can be done to make this entry more agreeable?
I'm about to go out of town, so can't look closely right now; but here are my initial thoughts.
I see you've already re-added it to the article. Please note that Wikipedia practice is that if content you add is removed, you should take it to the article's talk page and allow others to discuss it before adding it back to the article. This avoids "edit wars" of back-and-forth add/removal of content.
On my talk page, you used the statement "text that was used verbatim to create the entry", which concerns me. I hadn't realized this earlier - if it's copied straight from that site, then it's a copyright violation, which has legal mandates to remove it from Wikipedia.
As to the urls, one of them isn't bad - the other is laced with links steering readers to the redweek exchange - it's a marketing tool disguised as an article - no different than an infomercial.
On the content added to the article - mention that a user cal sell or rent units is already mentioned in the above sections. Granted, these could be expanded some. But the large addition you've made greatly over-expands the material. It's overkill. Wikipedia isn't a detailed guide or how-to manual, the large addition is simply overkill. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barek,
When I said verbatim, I meant one phrase per article I referenced. I have since removed that copy, and the "pros & cons" article link altogether. I had the author's permission, but do not wish to violate Wikipedia guidelinse. I also shortened it and removed some of the "how to" aspects. Please provide feedback so that I might clean it up further.
I was not aware that I should "talk" first and edit second. I definitely don't want a war of any type. But it strikes me as odd that my entire entry can be deleted with no talk at all, if conflict avoidance is the goal. And the removal of my entry, while blatant advertisements for WordMakr, etc. remain, seems capricious and arbitrary to me. I'd like your help in cleaning up those sections as well.
People who have purchased timeshares (or may do so in the future) are too often exposed to disinformation, including outright lies and rip-offs. This is particularly true of the secondary market. So I am not trying to make a how to, but rather, just declare that it actually exists, and in what forms.
This talk page gets relatively little visibility ... the discussion really belongs at Talk:Timeshare, where more people interested in the subject are likely to see it.
I've included some links in the following to help guide you to the appropriate materials ... I know it can be hard to find and be aware of this stuff when you're new to Wikipedia. On editing, the guiding concept is usually to be bold and to make edits; but once the edits are disputed/removed, they should be discussed before being restored. As mentioned at WP:RV, the reasoning being that the status quo of the article is the better base-line for discussion of changes. If the content had been long-standing, then that would have been the status-quo and the removal would be the change. As to removal without comment - you clearly saw my comment in my removal summary, as it was one of your first discussion points when you posted to this page. Yes, I probably should have started a conversation on the article talk page to clarify my reasons - but my edit wasn't the one modifying the established version of the article. You'll note that to avoid edit warring, I did not re-revert - it's just wrong to edit war.
Thanks for your help with the copyvio/sockpuppet issues on this page. You might like to take another look at it: I have just reverted an edit by 81.97.54.237 who went to the trouble of going back through the edit history and again reverting the deletion of the copyvio material. Naturally I suspect that the banned user is back. Cyclopaedic (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
did it get published? i had no intention of posting it or vandilizing that page, i just wanted to see what the largest possible size was, so i could save the image to my computer, and i pressed the back button. im not here to vandilize or anyhting. sorry for the mistake, And thanks for telling me about the sandbox. peace. BlueJaysFan32 (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I removed the warning that I had placed on your talk page as no one had replied to it on that page it wasn't disrupting any talk threads by removing it. I understand that your edit was done in good faith and only posted by accident. If you prefer that I not have removed it from your talk page, please feel free to restore it from your talk page history. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially disagreeing with the deletion of the article. I really don't want to see 500+ Amtrak bus stop articles. After reading WP:LOCAL, I agree that it's good information, but not notable enough to be in its own article. I already merged the information into Leavenworth, Washington#Transportation. kgrrtalk23:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Skyscanner travel comparison site
I noticed that the skyscanner page seems to be being tracked by a Poland based employee of Skyscanner who keeps removing any competition information from the page. I do not have any affiliation with travel companies but I am for consumer choice, hence I added the same information to a couple of other sites. I just find it is useful for me to remember which are the competitor sites. Can this be done in any different way? Fct1 (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially, if there's agreement within a related Wikiproject that these types of references are appropriate, then internal wikilinks to competitors would be reasonable ... but they definitely should be internal wikilinks, not external links, as external links to competitors runs into problems under various policies and guidelines, especially WP:EL and WP:NOT. The talk page for a relevant Wikiproject could be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Travel and Tourism. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable, so I will create wikilinks in future. I am pretty sure these have wikilinks.
I will also remove your copy/paste information from my page, as it does not take this into account.
Fct1 (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carson City, Nevada libraries
Hello! I was wondering why you deleted the portion about the libraries off the Carson City, NV wiki page? I am a librarian at the public library and thought it would be nice to be able to include something about them. Should I change the description of the libraries? --Acsady1 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone talked to you about getting sysopped? You've demonstrated you'd be excellent at it. If you're interested, I would be honored to go ahead and nominate you. Heres a preliminary copy, If you accept I'll move it to the apropriate spot... ;)--Hu12 (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - thanks. I consider it a huge vote-of-confidence in my Wikipedia activities just to have a well-established editor offer to nominate me.
For now, I think I will decline; although I did need to think about it and I reviewed past successful and unsuccessful RfA's before responding here. I may be interested in receiving a mop in the future; but at heart, I'm primarily a WikiGnome. A commonly desired component of most successful RfA candidates that I reviewed has been direct involvement on at least one DYK or featured article, or involvement on multiple articles to be classed at good article level. While I've started and collaborated on multiple articles, none here have moved up to those levels as yet.
I do understand the benefits of the tools which I am, for now, passing on attempting to request from the community. I have experience using sysop tools on two game-specific wikis from which I voluntarily resigned a couple years ago ([2]/[3]). Granted, the application of those tools on Wikipedia is slightly different due to different policies, culture, and raw size of the wikis ... but the basics are the same.
Having FA/GA/DYK level isn't a requirement. I'm horrible at getting anything past Start-class and mine passed very well. Your work here speaks for itself; I really expect you'd pass with no problems. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't an admin. tedder (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Tedder on this one, Your work here speaks for itself, and would expect you'll pass with relative ease and with much support. Your well respected and trusted, the two most important requirements. Reconsider and give it some more thought, Wikipedia needs hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about it some more. For now, I will still decline ... but I may reconsider by spring or summer of next year, if you still feel confident in my abilities by that time and would consider nominating then. Despite the assurances from each of you, I would still feel more comfortable going through the process if I had some DYK/FA/GA's under my belt. I may try in the coming months to focus on more than just incremental article work; and may use the time to submit myself for WP:ER to get some additional tips. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ext. Link
You haven't had the time to even look at that link's content, but you have removed it. What specifically about that link makes it unsuitable. Please don't just point me at WP:NOT, what is wrong with this link specifically? 76.95.104.7 (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: your edit to the World government article ... Wikipedia is not an internet directory, and should not be used to advertise games that are marginally related to article subjects.
In any case, it's inclusion has to be justified, not removing it. If you want more specifics, there's the blog/social network aspect, the extremely pov aspect (in part the site is a venue for extreme right-wing attacks on Obama). Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No actually the first removal by Barek should have been justified, by citing a specific policy... linkspam and link repository are not valid here, its one link in a list of 3, its as valid a link as the crufty 'world gov. in fiction section', if not more so. It isn't linkspam, I'm not promoting anything, that site is more than just right-wing attacks on Obama, and I'm as left-wing as you can get. Its the most-visited site on the internet for One World Government discussion. Neither of you have had even a fraction of the time it takes to evaluate that site. I assure you, that site WILL be in the article eventually. It might as well be there now. Starship Troopers and Brave New World are pretty POV as well ... and stop leaving newbie/antispam spam on my page. 76.95.104.7 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will stop using the template warnings on your talk page, per your request.
On the link itself - you are yet to cite inclusion criteria that would justify the link, while I have linked or referenced WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, WP:ELNO, and WP:LINKSPAM. The fact that you dispute their application does not take away from the fact that proper justification was provided. WP:LINKSPAM I already quoted above. On WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, "Wikipedia articles are not ... Mere collections of external links or Internet directories." Under WP:ELNO #4, #10, #13
The website is a combination forum/on-line game/networking site. The link would be appropriate on an article about the site - if it could meet WP:N; but has no other encyclopedic value. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please review another editor
As you have recently requested to be reviewed at Editor review, please consider reviewing another editor to help alleviate the backlog. Thanks. Netalarmtalk00:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
For your help here. I saw the orange bar, but was occupied for a moment and couldn't respond quickly. Glad you were around and watching. See ya 'round Tiderolls05:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For unknown reasons, the following reference won't display in this article. I am at a complete loss, as it shows up everywhere else I put it. I've tried everything I could think of, and have come up short. If you could fix it, it would be appreciated.
elevation = Focal plane - {{convert|73|ft|m}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.terrypepper.com/lights/lists/focalheight.htm |author=Pepper, Terry |work=Seeing the Light |title=Database of Focal Heights |publisher=terrypepper.com}}</ref>
There was a redundant field for "elevation", one with the ref, the other without it. As the last one read didn't have it, the ref didn't display. I removed the extra one, so it should be good now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep deleting my edits to the Guy Harvey page. Is it because it is commercial in nature? Guy Harvey is the consumate Capitalist with abundant licensees paying royalties to sell merchandise with his artwork on it, and selling his own artwork for upwards of $5,000 each. I know him personnaly and consider him to be a friend as we work together every year in Long Beach Ca. at a fishing show. He is not purely academic in his activities, so commercial links I would think, would be acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.255.151 (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to advertise commercial links. The article already contains a link to the guyharveyinc.com website, that's more than sufficient. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer - decisions are made by discussion and agreed consensus. In the case of content disputes, it's best to discuss the material on the talk page of the article at talk:Guy Harvey to determine community consensus. But, as that article likely has limited traffic of others viewing discussions on it, another step will likely be needed after starting the discussion there. Either creating a request for comments at WP:RFC pointing to the article talk page, or starting a discussion at WT:EL to ask for clarification on "Links normally to be avoided" #4 and #5 (see WP:ELNO to see those items). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I follow Barek's page, so let me weigh in a little. The article is about Guy Harvey, one official link is all that is necessary to go to Mr. Harvey's site. If more links are needed (twitter, facebook, shopping sites, secondary official sites), Guy Harvey can put them up at guyharveyinc.com, not at Guy Harvey. This is consistent with WP:ELOFFICIAL. tedder (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I should have better clarified my reasons for removing the links earliers. The anon asked where to get me "overruled", so I wanted to point to where discussions could be started ... but asking for other opinions on the article talk page won't go far given the issues with WP:ELNO #5, WP:ELOFFICIAL, etc. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I see language like "all that is necessary" I must wonder is Wiki about minimizing information or maximizing it. Well, I dont' really wonder anymore, I know, and your phrase told me the answer - minimizing!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.255.153 (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to expand the article with additional verifiable textual information for which reliable sources are available. What the wiki is "about" depends on your point of view. It's about maximizing verifiable article text that is backed with reliable sources; while minimizing advertisements and commercial link-spam that serves no constructive encyclopedic purpose. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My most recent edit to that page was on October 10th, in which I removed vandalism. Feel free to follow the link, it's obviously vandalism and not a reference of any sort. Also, from what I can see, this was prior to your involvement on the page.
My two warnings to your talk page were in regards to your violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule. After the first warning, you then continued the edit war via an IP. The second warning to your user page was to let you know that policies apply per person, not per account - and that you were now not only in violation of the three-revert rule, but also in violation of using sock puppets in order to engage in the edit war. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't need to be discussed on the talk page, I already explained everything numerous times, block that user! I already gave them four warnings, they have NO reason for removing already sourced and stated content and what I was simply doing was restoring what is supposed to be stated, while that IP address simply denied what was officially stated on that source. This is ridiculous, I've never had more of a outrageous time being on this website. -- GunMetal Angel20:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue appears to be a content dispute. Please be certain to abide by Wikipedia's three-revert rule. For issues where the two parties are unable to reach agreement on what should be done within the article, multiple suggested options for dispute resolution are available. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please Help
Hi Barek,
I am hoping you can help me find a way to get healthfinder.gov included in external links. As you are aware, The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has been adding external links to healthfinder.gov, a web site that provides resources and information on the topics covered by articles on Wikipedia. The CDC, which is also a Federal agency, places external links at the bottom of articles, yet their external links have not been removed. The ODPHP has followed the same format as the CDC and provides similar information to the CDC.
I understand that Wikipedia is not a list of links and that it is not a Web site to place advertisements. The ODPHP is not interested in advertising or promoting products... healthfinder.gov provides non-biased information on health for a variety of populations, similar to the CDC. I was hoping you could check out healthfinder.gov. I believe that once you do, you will find that it is not a promotional Web site but that it is a Web site providing consumers with important health information. An external link to healthfinder.gov adds content to the Wikipedia articles, as it provides additional non-biased information for readers who would like to access additional resources on a topic. Once again, ODPHP is not promoting a product.
The ODPHP has added external links the following Wikipedia articles. If these links are being added in a format that is incorrect, please inform me of how to add the links properly so that they will not be removed.
Thank you very much for your time, Barek. I would extermely appreciate that after you reveiw healthfinder.gov, that you let me know if you will continue to remove ODPHP's external links. While we are looking to provide addtional resources on certain topics, we are not interested in particpating in an act of futility.
Again, thank you. I look forward to hearing from you.
I have looked at Healthfinder.gov - several times. I followed each link you added and explored the data presented in each one.
Before going into further on the issues with the links, I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia's policy on editing with a conflict of interest, specifically in regards to adding links to a site with which you are associated.
There are several articles which already use links to the healthfinder.gov website. The website itself is not the issue, rather, the specific pages are the issue. For example, on the Sunscreen article, an external link about sunscreen would be appropriate - but you added a prevention article about how to "protect your skin from the sun", which is a secondary topic. External links should be directly relevant, not for secondary subjects of the article's primary subject. In regards to promotion, I have made no claims that the site promotes a product - your actions are towards actively promoting the site itself.
Hi Barek:
Thanks for watching out for vandalism on wikipedia.
I must have clearly done something wrong but I wanted to make sure I don't do it again esp since it was my first time today(yesterday) posting on wikipedia.
I posted an external link for [Ralitsa Vassileva] where I put a link to her high school (as a piece of well known personal history/background of Ralitsa). Would that be considered promotional material? daulfn 5:38 am (UTC) Monday, November 9, 2009
On the Ralitsa Vassileva article, you had added an internal link to First English Language School as an external link. The external links section should be used specifically for links to outside of Wikipedia. If a reliable source can be found to support it, then it would be good to add a mention in the text of the article about Ralitsa Vassileva that she attended First English Language School ... if you can find a source that can be used to verify that information, I would be happy to help you add the data into her article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Barek, I knew I messed up somewhere (external vs internal) :) To the alums of First English Language School (I am one of them) it is a well known fact that Ralitsa went to school at FELS. I guess in order to prove this I need to have the school headmistress of FELS post something on the official web site of the school - not sure what the something would be. Would this official Bulgarian "Novinite" web site be a sufficient proof? Just FYI I have contacted FELS and have asked them if it would be possible to publish on their web site names of well known alums, to the extent that it doesn't contradict the principles of our academic establishment in terms of egalitarianism. --- Daulfn (talk • contribs) - 3:18 am (UTC) Tuesday, November 10, 2009
I searched the source, and it doesn't seem to name the school in Sofia, Bulgaria. From the article, it mentions that she attended English language schools in Sofia, Bulgaria as well as in New Delhi, India ... but "First English Language School" isn't specifically mentioned (the article doesn't clarify if multiple English language schools exist in the cities). Because it's not stated directly to be FELS, someone else would be likely to come along and remove the school mention from the article as it's not directly verifiable.
Are you aware of any additional potential sources? If the school is willing to publish that material, that would work - but I understand that depending upon the application of egalitarianism principles, it may be difficult for the school to publish the material. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they have already violated a bit the "rules" of egalitarianism by not listing the name of a post-high-school academic institution that seems to be one of the places with the highest number of accepted students (much more compared to London University/Pomona/etc) - Mount Holyoke College. I will let you know once/if I hear back from the owners of the web site.
Btw there are 2 such ELS's in Sofia (1st and 2nd) and these schools are part of a larger national high school network of language schools (english/french/german/spanish). --- Daulfn (talk • contribs) - 6:42 am (UTC) Tuesday, November 10, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.253.149 (talk)
I have read the discussion. Clearly, no consensus exists for adding the links as external links, although some support may exist for using them as refs in an appropriate context. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple editors removing the link, with just yourself and a blocked suspected sockpuppet restoring them do not make a strong case for consensus to keep the links. Links that are strongly disputed about their appropriateness should gain consensus to remain, not the other way around. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's fixed - although I'm not entirely sure yet why it wasn't originally working. I'll look at it a bit closer and let you know if I spot anything. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the field "status" isn't an available field in {{Infobox Lighthouse}}, and it was confusing the system by having a non-existant field as the last entry before the embedded nrhp box. I was able to reproduce the error by test previewing other non-existant fields (example: inserting "Barek = hungry" just before the embedded box created the same error).
Please explain why the reference information was deleted from 'homelessness in canada' and 'runaway youth'. We need to insert the source of the material, but have a warning against it. How can we insert the reference and not be blocked from editing. Please reply on our talk page. Thankyou.
AMarsolais (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't able to reply sooner ... mix of system/network problem, difficulty remaining logged-in, and being busy in the real world all hit at once. It could be another week or more before I have time to do very much in here again - so you may want to ask someone else to take a look at the map if you haven't done so already. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Barek, just some friendly advice, I just wanted to say that I don't think it was the best decision to insist on that IP user User talk:99.236.221.124 carrying that template. Sure, you were formally in the right insofar as WP:BLANKING talks about not removing those, but like all rules on Wikipedia this one ought to be enforced only where it makes sense. Most IP talkpages never get this template, and for good reason. The template is meant only for cases where an IP has recognisably been used by many people and talk page communication is in danger of becoming confusing. In the present case, the template had been added by someone without any apparent motivation together with the first welcome edit to the talk page, perhaps in an act of mistaken routine. It's rather sad that this small matter was allowed to escalate to the point it did (of course, your own intervention was only one small part of that.) Regards, -- Fut.Perf.☼07:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply ... I just woke up.
I do agree, I should have looked more closely at the page history to see that the initial template was added not due to vandalism of any sort, but was actually added as part of a routine welcome message. I was also under the mis-impression at first that the IP was a shared IP, it was only after the legal threat was made that I realized it was in fact a static IP and that the non-shared "whois" would therefore be more appropriate, and that WP:BLANKING was therefore not applicable. But, by that point, the legal threat became the primary issue.
I realize that at ANI you said that you feel the legal threat was a type that should be overlooked, but I do disagree with you on that one point - mainly because I view it as an attempt to intimidate by bringing up external legal issues. Still, the IP should have been provided guidance on how to retract the threat sooner.
In my defense, I am the one who requested at ANI that the user regain access to their own talk page, because they had never been provided guidance on how to retract a legal threat. After that was done, both I and Floquenbeam provided the anon with guidance on how to proceed, which they used to politely request unblocking. I see that the user has now been unblocked, and I fully support that outcome. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I also agree that the sharedIP templates should be used primarilly where IPs are known to be shared (proxies such as schools, companies, libraries, etc). It was a mistake on my part to not confirm that was the case when I switched it from the "whois" over to the "ISP" tag. In all honesty, I'm not a fan of the "whois" template in the first place due to its wording, but that's a different issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changes to Dieting Page
Hi Barek,
Thanks for your quick comments on my change to the Dieting page, after you removed it. I've started a discussion on the articles Talk page for it.
My information is not “technically incorrect.” The information I have submitted is from the United States Census Bureau and is the latest and most updated information. You are continually reposting old and general estimates. I will continually post accurate information about population estimates as this is my background. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattscards (talk • contribs) 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits continue to use the wording that "San Jose has a population of 948,279 (July 2008 estimate)", while the original wording states clearly up-front that the value is an estimate by stating "Its estimated population by the US Census Bureau as of 2008 is 948,279."
Also, as I have already stated, your version breaks a ref tag in the "references" section, stating "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named population; see Help:Cite error." - while the original version does not create the error.
Barek Are you some kind of control freak??? I give correct and accurate information. I am not changing any information or content. I am UPDATING NUMBERS. This is from The United States Census Bureau. I gave this reference to the absolute latest press release. I am going to repost my ACCURATE numbers tomorrow. This is in the exact same format that I have used for dozens of other cities in the United States DO NOT ATTEMPT TO CHANGE MY POSTS AGAIN!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattscards (talk • contribs) 01:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits have been reverted on multiple articles by multiple editors. Your edits are breaking formatting of multiple articles, as has been reported to you on your talk page. You have been advised by multiple editors to discuss the issues you have with the values on the article talk pages, and you have not done so on those articles. A discussion at Talk:New York City#Estimated population in lede by other editors seems to support the original wording, not your revision. Lastly, please note that WP:3RR does not entitle you to three edits per day - edit warring is not productive, and delaying edits to technically skirt the 3RR policy can still result in a block.
Please, take your issues to the article talk pages - or try to reach consensus by starting a discussion about the changes at WT:USCITY, which is a Wikiproject with the admirable goal of standardizing the presentation of all US cities listed at Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, My numbers are accurate and my wording is correct.. leave it alone. I am 48 years old, and I am a Fund Manager, and you are fighting me over stupid wording. I have posted my reasons on the city page you suggested. I am not going anywhere. If you disagree with one of my posts again talk about it with me. Do not create friction between you and me by deleting it. I am sure we can come to some resolution. If you feel you are some kind of guru on city population then please take a different approach to me. I have posted my reasons in the City page you have posted in.Mattscards (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattscards (talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my posts more closely, it is NOT the wording that is resulting in my reverting your edits. I have posted my reasons to your talk page (here), along with links to examples where you can view the broken ref tag errors you are generating within the "references" section. I am not the only person to post on your talk page about the broken ref tags you are creating (link). Yes, I disagree with your wording; yes, I disagree that with using csv instead of xls format for the source; but these are both secondary issues to the broken ref tags you are creating. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
